I honestly believe many admins are abusing their blocking privileges and that the arbitration committee is not working. Here is what has happened to me. I have written and edited NUMEROUS articles, you can see a list on user:Please Don't Block. Most of these were edited under the name "Noah Peters." In December and January I engaged in a heated contest with several other users over the Abraham Lincoln page, much of which I have written, over whether to include Lincoln's alleged homosexuality on the page. This provoked a long editing war which resulted in the material being deleted. After this, I started editing the "gays in Nazi Germany" article. These edits were in good faith. But one user, Apollomelos, a self-described homosexual, began smearing me with all sorts of false charges, including that I vandalized the Abraham Lincoln page (not true) and that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan (also not true). I grew very alarmed at these allegations and requested my username be changed to "5440orFight," because "Noah Peters" is my real name and I don't want to get smeared with these charges. Well, the admins were totally insensitive to this desire and referred to "Noah Peters" repeatedly in a derisive way, many branding me a homophobe, and still do to this day even though the username is dead. Indeed, many admins have hurled false charges against that username to this day. For example, my userpage now says, "As Noah Peters he had a habit of reverting pages or removing the texts of others, was warned and switched to 5440orFight and got blocked by an Admin under that name for continuing the same practice." This is completely untrue, and yet whenever I try to change my userpage it gets changed back by some admin, and if I persist in trying to change it I am blocked.
Out of frustration with Apollomelos' charges, I had a fit of bad judgment and added the now-deleted "gay" template to various articles. I was promptly blocked by fvw, another homosexual administrator, who no longer works on wikipedia. Frustrated at the fact that my IP username page included charges against me that were not true yet kept being reverted back by various admins when I tried to delete them, I deleted fvw's page repeatedly in retaliation for my own inability to edit my personal page. I also made ill-tempered remarks to other admins who reverted my repeated attempts to delete my userpages. Meanwhile, my efforts to get my username changed have gone nowhere, and I panicked and emailed an admin to tell him to please delete my username; I didn't want my reputation ruined.
Then, Apollomelos decides he wants to pursue arbitration against me, taking several of my quotes out of context and embellishing with false charges. I was never informed arbitration was being pursued against me, but it was. Apollomelos has done this to several other users; putting quotes out of context and making misleading edits and over-the-top allegations. He also does not allow edits to the gay-themed pages and smears anyone who changes these pages as "homophobes" if they write anything he doesn't agree with. Read his talk page. In another fit of ill-temper, to combat his own charges against me, I created user:Apollomelos2 and user:Apollomelos3. I can't delete Apollomelos2, even though it was blocked as soon as I created it, it must remain, "Abusive sockpuppet of Noah Peters."
Now, whenever I try to get a new username, it is blocked for being an "abusive sockpuppet of Noah Peters." Whenever I try to delete the pages of my old usernames which bear the title, "abusive Sockpuppet of Noah Peters" (never mind that "Noah Peters" no longer exists) and which are now blocked, they are reverted back; I have absolutely no control over them; they must remain as monuments to Apollomelos' false charges and my bad response to them. The admins don't understand why I have to get a new username and instead assume I am creating a username for vandalism. So I can't have a new username. This is really frustrating. It is also frustrating that the "Noah Peters" username has attracted a false reputation for bad and misleading edits when all of my edits under that name, except for some ill-temper that was provoked, was of strerling quality.
The latest thing is that I chose the username, Jesus H. Christ III. Refdoc blocked this permanently on account of it being offensive; though if I had known it would be offensive, which I did not (Jesus Christ is a cultural figure too, I didn't know that anyone on wikipedia would care), I wouldn't have damned well picked it in the first place. No one will ever be able to edit under it again unless Refdoc wills it to be so. I can't delete the userpage either; it must be reverted back. I can't delete the false charges against me from any userpage; they must remain because the admins said so.
I then picked a new username and complained about my treatment on Refdoc's talk page. His response was to ban my new username for, of couse, "obvious reasons."
I have never been able to communicate with anyone on wikipedia; no human interface to explain what has happened, to explain that I have added a lot to wikipedia and want to be forgiven. The first instinct is always to ban me; always to revert without asking me; always to assume my bad motives; never to communicate.
I want all references to "Noah Peters" deleted. The username is banned permanently and I want admins to stop damn well referencing it. I want to be anonymous with an anonymous username not smeared as a sockpuppet so I can edit without fear to my reputation. And this process has been hellish for me. This is a community of mistrust and anger, of abusive edit wars, of sarcasm, of contempt; not of support.
NP
On 4/20/05, noahp4485@aol.com noahp4485@aol.com wrote:
I honestly believe many admins are abusing their blocking privileges and that the arbitration committee is not working. Here is what has happened to me. I have written and edited NUMEROUS articles, you can see a list on user:Please Don't Block. Most of these were edited under the name "Noah Peters."
I wrote to Noah about this issue a couple of weeks ago because I stumbled on it and it seemed odd. He replied to me this evening and asked me to delete the user and talk pages for all these accounts, which I have now done (with the exception of the talk page of Noah Peters, which can't be deleted because of some technical problem, so I've blanked and protected it instead).
I've advised Noah to start from scratch with a new user account so his IP is not visible, and then he'll be able to rebuild his profile. So long as he sticks to Wikipedia policies, he shouldn't have any problems.
Sarah
It is firly common. I was chased around by Violet/Riga because she didn't like me. She eventually persuaded another admin to block me for breaking 3RR, dispite the fact that I had not. When this was pointed out she claimed I had still acted wrong and she refused to apologizes. It was impossible to start an RFC against this person, as the admins now protect each other.
Then there is SnowSpinner, ignore him get blocked. Various admins engage in the same kind of behaviour, but the arbcomm prevented me from starting a complaint against him or them.
I have started the WLF and the PFLW in an attempt to reverse the perversion of the system introduced by the ArbComm and various admins. Who are basically so up tight because they have a very limited ability to c control Wikipedia, what with DHCP etc.
Date sent: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:58:42 -0400 From: noahp4485@aol.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Abusive Blocking Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
I honestly believe many admins are abusing their blocking privileges and that the arbitration committee is not working. Here is what has happened to me. I have written and edited NUMEROUS articles, you can see a list on user:Please Don't Block. Most of these were edited under the name "Noah Peters." In December and January I engaged in a heated contest with several other users over the Abraham Lincoln page, much of which I have written, over whether to include Lincoln's alleged homosexuality on the page. This provoked a long editing war which resulted in the material being deleted. After this, I started editing the "gays in Nazi Germany" article. These edits were in good faith. But one user, Apollomelos, a self-described homosexual, began smearing me with all sorts of false charges, including that I vandalized the Abraham Lincoln page (not true) and that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan (also not true). I grew very alarmed at these allegations and requested my username be changed to "5440orFight," because "Noah Peters" is my real name and I don't want to get smeared with these charges. Well, the admins were totally insensitive to this desire and referred to "Noah Peters" repeatedly in a derisive way, many branding me a homophobe, and still do to this day even though the username is dead. Indeed, many admins have hurled false charges against that username to this day. For example, my userpage now says, "As Noah Peters he had a habit of reverting pages or removing the texts of others, was warned and switched to 5440orFight and got blocked by an Admin under that name for continuing the same practice." This is completely untrue, and yet whenever I try to change my userpage it gets changed back by some admin, and if I persist in trying to change it I am blocked.
Out of frustration with Apollomelos' charges, I had a fit of bad judgment and added the now-deleted "gay" template to various articles. I was promptly blocked by fvw, another homosexual administrator, who no longer works on wikipedia. Frustrated at the fact that my IP username page included charges against me that were not true yet kept being reverted back by various admins when I tried to delete them, I deleted fvw's page repeatedly in retaliation for my own inability to edit my personal page. I also made ill-tempered remarks to other admins who reverted my repeated attempts to delete my userpages. Meanwhile, my efforts to get my username changed have gone nowhere, and I panicked and emailed an admin to tell him to please delete my username; I didn't want my reputation ruined.
Then, Apollomelos decides he wants to pursue arbitration against me, taking several of my quotes out of context and embellishing with false charges. I was never informed arbitration was being pursued against me, but it was. Apollomelos has done this to several other users; putting quotes out of context and making misleading edits and over-the-top allegations. He also does not allow edits to the gay-themed pages and smears anyone who changes these pages as "homophobes" if they write anything he doesn't agree with. Read his talk page. In another fit of ill-temper, to combat his own charges against me, I created user:Apollomelos2 and user:Apollomelos3. I can't delete Apollomelos2, even though it was blocked as soon as I created it, it must remain, "Abusive sockpuppet of Noah Peters."
Now, whenever I try to get a new username, it is blocked for being an "abusive sockpuppet of Noah Peters." Whenever I try to delete the pages of my old usernames which bear the title, "abusive Sockpuppet of Noah Peters" (never mind that "Noah Peters" no longer exists) and which are now blocked, they are reverted back; I have absolutely no control over them; they must remain as monuments to Apollomelos' false charges and my bad response to them. The admins don't understand why I have to get a new username and instead assume I am creating a username for vandalism. So I can't have a new username. This is really frustrating. It is also frustrating that the "Noah Peters" username has attracted a false reputation for bad and misleading edits when all of my edits under that name, except for some ill-temper that was provoked, was of strerling quality.
The latest thing is that I chose the username, Jesus H. Christ III. Refdoc blocked this permanently on account of it being offensive; though if I had known it would be offensive, which I did not (Jesus Christ is a cultural figure too, I didn't know that anyone on wikipedia would care), I wouldn't have damned well picked it in the first place. No one will ever be able to edit under it again unless Refdoc wills it to be so. I can't delete the userpage either; it must be reverted back. I can't delete the false charges against me from any userpage; they must remain because the admins said so.
I then picked a new username and complained about my treatment on Refdoc's talk page. His response was to ban my new username for, of couse, "obvious reasons."
I have never been able to communicate with anyone on wikipedia; no human interface to explain what has happened, to explain that I have added a lot to wikipedia and want to be forgiven. The first instinct is always to ban me; always to revert without asking me; always to assume my bad motives; never to communicate.
I want all references to "Noah Peters" deleted. The username is banned permanently and I want admins to stop damn well referencing it. I want to be anonymous with an anonymous username not smeared as a sockpuppet so I can edit without fear to my reputation. And this process has been hellish for me. This is a community of mistrust and anger, of abusive edit wars, of sarcasm, of contempt; not of support.
NP _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
--- John Bradley john@ontobus.co.uk wrote:
It is firly common. I was chased around by Violet/Riga because she didn't like me. She eventually persuaded another admin to block me for breaking 3RR, dispite the fact that I had not. When this was pointed out she claimed I had still acted wrong and she refused to apologizes. It was impossible to start an RFC against this person, as the admins now protect each other.
Nope. You were chased around by Violet/Riga (and everyone else) because you were making lots of abusive personal attacks.
Then there is SnowSpinner, ignore him get blocked. Various admins engage in the same kind of behaviour, but the arbcomm prevented me from starting a complaint against him or them.
Nope. You were put under a temporary injunction by the Arbcom because you were behaving badly (personal attacks and listing user's user pages for deletion).
I have started the WLF and the PFLW in an attempt to reverse the perversion of the system introduced by the ArbComm and various admins. Who are basically so up tight because they have a very limited ability to c control Wikipedia, what with DHCP etc.
Nope. You have been banned, quite fairly. Attempts to circumvent your ban will not help your case.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Here we have a typical integrity free reply from one of the usual candidates.
You claim about Violet Trick assumes that you know which block is being talked about. So you will now produce a pointer to the 3RR page, if you don't it will be a sign that yet again, you are demonstrating a lack of integrity.
You can also explain why VT is allowed to corrupt data in articles to make his or her point?
It's strange though that it was Snowspiner who original blocked me, long before the temporary injunction, but why should little fact get in the way.
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
As I have explained to you before, several times, you aren't interesting in the contents of arguments but in how well the adhere to you idea of the correct ritual, it is what I would expect from a Posh, privately educated practising Christian.
To be honest Matt your not in a position to know what will or wont help my case, you don't even know what my case is. You don't have the intelligence to work it out, you just acting in a knee jerk way to protect you POV and try and pretend that it is not just you POV but some universal one.
Date sent: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:54:04 +0100 (BST) From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive Blocking To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org, John Bradley john@ontobus.co.uk Copies to: Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
--- John Bradley john@ontobus.co.uk wrote:
It is firly common. I was chased around by Violet/Riga because she didn't like me. She eventually persuaded another admin to block me for breaking 3RR, dispite the fact that I had not. When this was pointed out she claimed I had still acted wrong and she refused to apologizes. It was impossible to start an RFC against this person, as the admins now protect each other.
Nope. You were chased around by Violet/Riga (and everyone else) because you were making lots of abusive personal attacks.
Then there is SnowSpinner, ignore him get blocked. Various admins engage in the same kind of behaviour, but the arbcomm prevented me from starting a complaint against him or them.
Nope. You were put under a temporary injunction by the Arbcom because you were behaving badly (personal attacks and listing user's user pages for deletion).
I have started the WLF and the PFLW in an attempt to reverse the perversion of the system introduced by the ArbComm and various admins. Who are basically so up tight because they have a very limited ability to c control Wikipedia, what with DHCP etc.
Nope. You have been banned, quite fairly. Attempts to circumvent your ban will not help your case.
-- Matt [[User:Matt Crypto]]
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley (john@ontobus.co.uk) [050423 00:50]:
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
Personal attacks toward other editors are not tolerated because they drive other volunteers away from editing. This is bad for Wikipedia.
Really. I pretty much don't care how much of an expert a given editor is - if they're acting like an arsehole and making editing an unpleasant experience for others, we don't need them. There are PLENTY of really quite high-grade experts editing Wikipedia who don't in fact act like arseholes.
(This does, however, require a more than usual tolerance for and patience with stupid fellow volunteers amongst the experts in question, and occasional annoying having to prove things from first principles on talk pages when the well-meaning idjit doesn't get it. This is quite a bit less than ideal, and we need ways to deal with it, but it still isn't an excuse for personal attacks.)
Note that Irate, the user in question, has not shown even this level of justification for his streams of personal attacks.
- d.
It is strange that you can decide that one group of editors is valuable to wikipedia but not another.
Can you show me some data which demonstrates that the losses cause by straight talking would exceed the saving acheived by some editor pruning? or is this another case of assuming that the first idea that comes into your head is right and fighting for it.
You'll also note that this is the first time Dave Gerard has responded to me with anything other than msgs saying he will not talk with me.
Date sent: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 05:58:32 +1000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive Blocking From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Send reply to: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley (john@ontobus.co.uk) [050423 00:50]:
I think it is everyone who cares about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia rather than a social club stepped forward and be counted.
Personal attacks toward other editors are not tolerated because they drive other volunteers away from editing. This is bad for Wikipedia.
Really. I pretty much don't care how much of an expert a given editor is - if they're acting like an arsehole and making editing an unpleasant experience for others, we don't need them. There are PLENTY of really quite high-grade experts editing Wikipedia who don't in fact act like arseholes.
(This does, however, require a more than usual tolerance for and patience with stupid fellow volunteers amongst the experts in question, and occasional annoying having to prove things from first principles on talk pages when the well-meaning idjit doesn't get it. This is quite a bit less than ideal, and we need ways to deal with it, but it still isn't an excuse for personal attacks.)
Note that Irate, the user in question, has not shown even this level of justification for his streams of personal attacks.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley wrote:
It is strange that you can decide that one group of editors is valuable to wikipedia but not another.
Can you show me some data which demonstrates that the losses cause by straight talking would exceed the saving acheived by some editor pruning? or is this another case of assuming that the first idea that comes into your head is right and fighting for it.
You'll also note that this is the first time Dave Gerard has responded to me with anything other than msgs saying he will not talk with me.
Wikipedia welcomes anyone who contributes and follows policy. "Cite sources", "no personal attacks" and "neutral point of view" sound fairly reasonable. Given that the role of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, the aim of an encyclopedia is to educate, and discussion can help to educate, I think that just talking to people in a calm and sensible manner is going to achieve a whole lot more than attacking them, because if you can actually DISCUSS something, education will take place and the issue will be resolved. Experts in a particular field may be frustrated with having to put up with ignorant plebs, but if say "I am an expert in (topic), the facts are (such and such)" AND provide some reference material to back it up, you will be well-respected. Screaming "You idiot! That's wrong!" will get nothing but frowns and shakes of the head.
PS. I advise against publishing your full name, address and phone number in your email. This mailing list ends up in newsgroups, so if someone takes an exception to what you say, you could be in serious personal danger.