The end - Wikimedia-l

17 May 2016


      I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal thoughts.
I don't know what to do now.
Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me without reading the policy.
An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed. Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job. But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed.
That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard work was appreciated.
I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wi...
Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction.
I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it had been deleted.
So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the history.
Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how? The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking of his exploits!
So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous, like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP investigation! That *is* notable!
But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article.., desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it. In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is deleted midway through editing it?
The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant. So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion. At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove huge swathes of information.
Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary read BLP violation.
Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said, I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer! And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very public figure and this was reported widely.
And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been a case.
So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up, took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial". In fact, he was just getting started..,
"the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason."
I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies associated with Mehajer.
And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have let it go.
So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was reverted.
I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly non-controversial, was removed.
Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a violation of Biographies of Living People!
There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again because no answer had been provided.
Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned. But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references! Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.
But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was told.
In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more, to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could locate about a subject.
I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total. There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't know where. I pray my family forgives me.
Chris
Ta bu shi da yu
Sent from my iPhone