Rescuing our comrades from Wikipedia Options Rating

[Olivier Besancenot]

Something I have seen over and over and over is a progressive user starting with Wikipedia, being descended on by conservative users fighting them alone (since progressive users are either harassed, on probation, banned etc. like Lir, Wik, Shorne, 172, Secretlondon etc.) before they are hauled off to the biased ArbCom cabal and dealt with.

It is too big a project for one person to be on the lookout for new, progressive users who are going to be targeted by reactionaries (and since Wikipedia is unfriendly to progressives, there aren't many to defend them). When I saw one, I used to tell them about alternative wikis. Now I would tell them about Wikipedia Review as well.

I think this should be a project, for anyone who would want to join me in telling people about Wikipedia Review and alternative wikis. Especially the kind of people who would be interested in these things.

[Golbez]

I don't think Lir was banned for being progressive.

[Lir]

I don't think Lir was banned for being progressive.

I was banned for having the audacity to think Christopher Columbus approved of slavery, despite the consensus of the cabal.

[Blu Aardvark]

I don't think Lir was banned for being progressive.

I was banned for having the audacity to think DNA was a nucleic acid, despite the consensus of the cabal.

In addition to opposing Snowspinner's RFA, and in general being on Raul654's bad side.

[guanaco]

In addition to opposing Snowspinner's RFA, and in general being on Raul654's bad side.

I guess I'm next then.

[Blu Aardvark]

I guess I'm next then.

It's certainly possible - but they have to find a good excuse first (ie, cover their asses), and quite frankly, you haven't really provided them with one. I'm certain they're just trying to get me out of there as well - but again, there's no evidence of bannable behaviour, other than a few trivial WP:NPA violations which would be really difficult to hinge a ban on.

With Lir, it was easy to provide an excuse. They simply said, "omg lir forgot to log in and violated his injunction banzors lol", and took all of the statements he made via his IP out of context. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is presented in Lir's final case to justify a ban of a year. This is justified by saying, "well, he's a problem user", when, in fact, the evidence is startlingly strong that many editors would revert Lir on sight, and flat-out refused to work with him. Who, I ask, is the "problem user" - the one trying to make contributions in good faith, or the many - Snowspinner included - who repeatedly tried to revert those contributions in bad faith?

In addition, there is little evidence that the repeated ban evasions that Raul and Snowspinner obsessively hunt for are, in fact, Lir. (A few of them are, but many are not - in fact, even some that Raul and Snowspinner KNOW are not are still listed, such as the Orange Flowerpot brigade.)

But with others... excuses are hard to come by. You can bet that they are trying to hunt down an excuse to get rid of me, for instance - but they can't yet justify it.

[Lir]

Nothing, and I mean nothing, is presented in Lir's final case to justify a ban of a year.

Yah, it all sounds so serious and extreme, you'd think there'd be something there; I go and look every now and again, just to reaffirm how absurd it all is... and everytime, I see that I allegedly 'vandalized' 198's user page, and 198 testified that I did not do so, and his testimony was ignored... so, I just have to shake my head at wiki justice. On top of all that, my ban for a year was not because an RfAr was made against me; instead, I had made the RfAr, in order to ask the arbitration committee to do something about people like Snowspinner, who feel they can get away with banning people, unilaterally, for month-long periods of time... my RfAr was turned wholly against me, and I was banned, apparently, for pointing out abuses of power.

It was a total sham trial, amusingly so.