Public copy:

Dear ArbCom,

As you know, the fourth year of my one year ban has begun. This is quite an embarassing situation for the Wiki because it shows a complete disregard for the basics of justice, logic, and definitions.

If you recall, the flimsy justification for my continuing to be banned was a lack of coming to terms for a parole. Such terms were never even discussed as per the leaks of the ArbCom-l list. Instead, the list was used by Arbitrators to make some of the most egregious personal attacks and catty statements about me that would have resulted in long blocks if made anywhere on Wikipedia.

My sentence was one year with probationary terms afterwards. Probation, as everyone knows, is not held within a prison. There cannot be a block when probation exists. The probation started immediately following the end of my one year term regardless of the actual condition of my status or any terms thereof. Many admin have made this point and one even went ahead with their unblock of me before (for which I asked him to quickly reblock as it is a matter of principal that ArbCom acknowledge that they had no right to act in such a manner).

The terms for my being blocked were flimsy at best.

* There was one claim of a BLP violation for a comment about an academic that I could (and have) backed up with sources (I stated that he was not respected after he wrote material for Britannica).


* There was claims I inappropriately accused people of meat puppetry even though the own statement says that an outsider would make the same claims (and that same admin outed me quite viciously and passed around my personal info via email).

* There was a statement saying that I would not acknowledge experts in the dispute even though those experts never revealed any personal information that would verify they had any background they claimed and sources contradicted them. My background, transcripts, degrees, and the rest were provided to ArbCom and others, which verified my status as an academic, an expert in the fields I focus on, and someone with real credentials.

* Then there was the odd claim that one individual admin could declare a user within probation against community consensus, which was the whole point

The most egregious part was that the case formed around Moreschi's use of admin privileges to delete an RfC I filed against Risker out of process. His actions led to a block that was quickly overturned, and the question of Risker's involvement with Geogre was a central component of the case. Risker did not recuse, and even made many harsh comments on the ArbCom-l email list to attack my character, comments that would have resulted in her being blocked if made in public. She even made catty statements about my appearing at various Wiki events, even though I was personally invited by Cary Bass and Sage Ross (NewYorkBrad also made a similarly catty statement).

She was not the only one to make comments. When an admin came before ArbCom for both being an accused pedophile and also someone who abused his administrative powers on Wikipedia to cause other people harm, it was said on the list that he was showing characteristics of me. The accusation was that I was the standard of all bad behavior on Wikipedia, and that a pedophilic abusive admin was still no where near as bad as anything that I ever did. There were many more attacks, but not one person ever said that such comments were inappropriate for the list, especially when I never had anything to do with such matters.

For my part, I produced the highest rate of quality content that the Wiki has ever seen. My pages are still the standard for high content, and all but one of my Featured Articles will have been displayed on the main page (the last will never because it deals with a touchy subject of Lord Byron and possible sex with a 14 year old boy).

I proved that I was able to work with some of the most hostile or incivil people on the Wiki. This is a feat that has not been accomplished by anyone since, even though the Arbitrators who smeared me consistently in the ArbCom-l convinced themselves that I was never able to work with anyone. Oddly enough, those same Arbitrators claimed I am the incivil one, even though I never cussed, never made attacks, or did anything even close. My "incivility" was saying that people who sock and meatpuppet were acting abusive.

Those Arbitrators labelled me paranoid for being upset that I was the target of the sock puppetry of Geogre, Jack Merridew, and Unitanode. These individuals not only attacked me and consistently did whatever they could to try and indefinitely ban me, but they involved themselves in content to try and push things that directly contradicted sources, defended plagiarism, and other abuses that a normal person would not see as acceptable on Wikipedia. They were a plague, and they went after anyone they could. Durova, John Carter, Sandy George, Raul, etc. experienced the same problems I did and fought against these individuals at different times. Yet my asking for something to be done to deal with the obvious was met with ridicule.

I am disliked because I point out plagiarism, and have revealed tens of thousands of pages of it so far by some of the most prolific content contributors. I exposed problems among people gaming the system. I did so with 6 of the Arbitrators. I pointed out socking that led to abuse that the Arbitrators could have prevented and did nothing about. I pointed out tons of copyright infringment that they had evidence for but sat on it.

Is that really how an encyclopedia operates? It isn't civil. Civility means to act within a code of conduct that deals with propriety. Justice is an important component of it, and justice means to treat others in a certain way and also to act in a certain way. Gaming the system, socking, plagiarizing, and the such are not civil. They are not the good behavior of a Wiki citizen.


I never socked. Not once. I still produced high quality content and left it to the care of well respected members of the community to move it over. Is it a coincidence that Rlevse, upset that I sent a group of people proof of his plagiarism long before it came out publicly (and after many months of trying to get him to fix it first) fought so hard against those pages from being moved in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortality

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegy_Written...ntry_Churchyard

Are some of the greatest pages on Wikipedia, yet he tried to do whatever he could to make sure they weren't put there. These were pages that had nothing there. They are fundamentally important poems and the research is impecable.

The other page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubla_Khan

had a shoddy version, and recent edits introduced plagiarism and original research. ArbCom was provided with a list of clear plagiarism and copyright introduced on the page and failed to do anything to correct it.


Why is that so? Why is anyone happy with this standard?

Well, ArbCom itself is not happy. Last time my ban come up for discussion, it was 50/50 and ArbCom refused to make it public because there was no consensus to keep me banned. Iridescent, a long term advocate for my unban, was unavailable for the discussion and would have been the vote to get me unbanned. The Arbitrators all knew it yet did not say anything. Why?

The ArbCom does not want editors, nor do they want to support them. The ArbCom exists only to make arbitrator decisions or petty decisions. It has been dysfunctional, but so has Wikipedia been since 2009. There is little content made but tons of plagiarism is being introduced every day. Huge content areas are severely lacking, and the only way to have any guarentee of editing on Wikipedia is to sock, form your little petty groups, and wage war on other petty groups. It is a rather lawless community because there is no desire to end such behavior at the top.

This is an unblock request. This is not an unban request because my ban ended at the end of 2010. It is being copied elsewhere because public copies are the only way to guarentee that the community is actually kept in the loop in matters that they are supposed to be involved in. This will be the last unblock request I will make because I really don't care for such a broken system as this one with its constant hoop jumping and having to act in various ways merely to meet the fickle desires of a group that only wants to see someone debase themselves for petty amusement without any actual guarentees it will change their mind.

I don't expect to be unblocked because ArbCom is not a system of justice. It is a system of whim. I have no hope for Wikipedia's future because there are few left that actually show the ability and skill necessary to do the right thing. The most prominent content editors, like Malleus, edit primarily in topics that aren't that important while important areas continue to flounder.

Wikipedia is not the sinking Titannic. It is Gilligan's Island, long after the initial crash and a bunch of people running around in the same circles every day just trying to mildly amuse themselves as they wait for death. Wikipedia would be a far better sitcom than it could ever be an encyclopedia.