Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
'outing' a power user.
The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by many
people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure,
when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as
uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting
articles, so...
Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.
On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and
has helpful input,
feel free to contact me offlist.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <
chris.sherlock79(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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-w…
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>