The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Proofreader77 (Feb/March 2010)
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 6:16pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:03:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Proofreader77

Disputed (mildly) indef block being discussed on ANI. Nothing calling for
us to intervene, but there's enough long-term disruption that I decided to
run a CU ... but I've tried it three times and the results page for the IP
hangs my computer and I can't stroll down. Can someone with maybe better
technical luck today please give it a check? Thanks.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:21:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Proofreader77

I took a look and didn't see anything. The IP was hanging because there are
2,000+ edits on it.

KL

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> Disputed (mildly) indef block being discussed on ANI. Nothing calling for
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:55:54 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Proofreader77

Thanks. I use the checkuser tool rarely enough that it frustrates me the
few times I do try it and it doesn't work for me.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:21 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> I took a look and didn't see anything. The IP was hanging
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proofreader77

Hello all,
in late January, another editor highlighted these edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=195275745

(march 2008)

At this time there was a block on his IP address by Can't Sleep Clown will eat me (I am not good at IPs and am rushed - didn't check whether a rangeblock or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=334805756

(around 30 December 2009)

and wondered whether Proofreader might be having a manic episode - the first was a highly weird stream of consciousness indeed, and I did think it certainly sounded manic to me.

Why am I sending this? I feel some privacy and delicate discussion (and explanation) is needed with Proofreader77 about these edits, hence arbcom is the best vehicle for this.

The other editor suggested I mentor him (I was busy elsewhere so did think but never got round to discussing in detail....this /really/ sounded too much like work for me.
cheers
Cas
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:55:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Proofreader77

Hi Cas:

Thanks for your email, which we will consider.

Roger


Cas Liber wrote:
> Hello all,
> in late January, another editor highlighted these edits
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:19:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Forward - Email exchange with Casliber re email to
Arbcom re "Proofreader77 blocks"

Forwarding with permission.

Risker/Anne

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Proofreader77 <teatimesunday.com>
Date: 15 February 2010 21:23
Subject: Forward - Email exchange with Casliber re email to Arbcom re
"Proofreader77 blocks"
To: Risker


FYI: I noticed the note by Casliber re an email
and followed up with them.

Note: 1. Mistaken interpretation regarding edit #1
(I was removing it, not inserting it.)

Note 2: See my notes below.

FYI: I am not in the least bothered to discuss
any edits of mine in a public forum.

BOKE
www.boke.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofrea...f_Proofreader77
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofrea...er77_came_to_be

(see collapsed messages below)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Proofreader77
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: query
To: Cas Liber


Re: The first edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=195275745

Do you understand I was *removing *the edit?
(Someone had put it in. I was removing it.)

Re: The second

- I am an artist.
- My new bank which ate my old one and lowered my credit limit because I
wasn't using the card.
- So ... I decided to load up the card, to adjust the bank's computer's
algorithm ..
- And a good way to do that .. (or an artist's way) was to donate 1,000
to Wikipedia ...
- yada yada yada
- We can discuss more if you like.

Thank you for your reply. And again, I am not in the least bothered'
to discuss either of these (and other edits) in a public forum.

Kindest regards,
BOKE
www.boke.com


On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Cas Liber wrote:

> dear Proofreader,
> someone highlighted these edits to me (as I am a psychiatrist) and
> suggested they looked like you might be suffering from some form of manic
> episode:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=195275745
>
> (march 2008)
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=334805756
>
> (around 30 December 2009)
>
> I must say the first was a highly weird stream of consciousness indeed, and
> I does look like something somone in a manic state might write.
>
> Hence, I passed it onto the arbitration committee (by email to keep it as
> low-key as possible)
>
> I have done so as the variable of something like this makes the situation a
> little more complex - if this is indeed the case, then maybe having one or
> more trusted editor(s) to look out for you if you hit turbulence might be a
> very good thing if you want to keep participating. Alternatrively, if you
> want the account permablocked I guess it makes it moot.
>
> Good luck whatever you wish to do - I needn't be involved but am happy to
> help in any way I can
> cheers
> Cas Liber
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:55:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

I've just changed my vote to Accept on Proofreader77, although we might
consider proceeding by motion without a full case. For those who have not
yet seen it, Proofreader77's "statement" on the request for arbitration is
bizarre, and I see no likelihood that encouraging continued editing in this
vein will lead to anything other than persistent ongoing disruption.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:57:25 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

I've been seriously considering accepting as well, but was going to sleep on
it since I seem to be accepting cases at a ferocious rate these days. We're
being called on to evaluate both Proofreader's conduct and the propriety of
the assorted blocks, and I think an ArbCom case is the best way of
addressing these.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> I've just changed my vote to Accept on Proofreader77, although
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:58:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

Yeah, I read that too. I agree with you.

Risker/Anne

On 16 February 2010 23:55, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> I've just changed my vote to Accept on Proofreader77, although
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:08:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> I've just changed my vote to Accept on Proofreader77, although we might
> consider proceeding by motion without a full case. For those who have not
> yet seen it, Proofreader77's "statement" on the request for arbitration is
> bizarre, and I see no likelihood that encouraging continued editing in this
> vein will lead to anything other than persistent ongoing disruption.
>

Sure, but do we really need to step in? Given that he almost got banned
already, I'm not convinced that the community can't handle this one just
fine on its own.

Kirill
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:11:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

I think the ANI discussion was quite a ways from consensus to ban. It's
possible that if someone brought a general community ban proposal, rather
than an indef-block in response to a specific event as here, the reaction
would be different, mind you.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:11:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

In a perfect world, you're right, but given that there was an indef/unindef
cycle just the other night, any attempt to indef him now could lead to cries
of wheel-warring etc. Still, I suppose we can move slowly and see if events
overtake us in the next couple of days.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:51:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

Well, it turns out that Future Perfect at Sunrise has just indeffed
Proofreader77 for the very post that so many of us have identified as being
"bizarre".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pro...7#Blocked_again

Can't say I am shocked, or even disturbed, by this outcome; the question is
whether it will stick. It does, however, make the proposed case (with
respect to admins blocking him) moot, as far as I am concerned.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (Proofreader77)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:49:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - I have just been blocked indef for my
RfAR statements/information.

I had just noticed I had gone over size limit,
when I was informed I was blocked for making
my case at the RfAR.

This seems absurd. Please inform me what kind
of defense/explanation I am supposed to make
to request simply to deal with issues regarding
the RfAR regarding me.

Sincerly,

BOKE
www.boke.com

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Proofreader77" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:23:49 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

Several points:

1) The use of poetry shouldn't be included in the bizarreness, only
the content (at least one arb is renowned for using verse, so that
idiosyncracy is widespread, and one reason why I try and avoid it
myself).

2) Don't let the behaviour of others slide here: "Proofreader, what
we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut up. One more
word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for trolling.
Fut.Perf. ? 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)" At first glance, that looks
unnecessarily provocative and draconian.

3) Rodhullandemu has had complaints made about him before, justified
IMO. I see he was under stress here (I read the bit about the assault,
but there is also a continuing pattern of conduct here for him). It's
the same old story seen in others: they see what they perceive as
insufficient respect shown for their contributions, and out of a sense
of entitlement feel they can demand things the way they want - their
way or the highway. This is not the right time to raise that, but it
keeps coming up time and time again.

4) Admins need to explain their blocks when questioned. Some admins
here refused to explain their blocks. That can't be allowed to pass
without comment, or at the least, if it happens again with the *same*
people, it needs to be noted. I was particularly shocked to read at
one point that someone suggested (in another case, I think) to "block
indef and defend the block at ANI". That is the most drama-inducing
advice I've ever seen. Either block indefinitely and let the normal
unblock requests deal with it (*then* explain the block further, going
to ANI if needed), or start a community ban discussion with proper
evidence laid out. To block first and then ask if the block is OK is
one of those things that I've never been able to understand. If you
can't stand behind a block you make, or think there will be objections
you can't counter, don't make it.

For the record, no admin should ever be blocking and "seeing if it
will stick". They should be able, first to the editor blocked, and
then to others if asked, to discuss, explain and justify a block under
the blocking policy. They should not be using blocks to test the
waters or seeing which way the wind is blowing - that will only lead
to chaos and admins blocking if they think they can get away with it.
There is already a pattern of some admins blocking and then using the
reaction to a block to justify extending the block - that is an old
trick, and one we should be wary of, though it is difficult to
distinguish between genuine cases and cases where admins are
intentionally trying to provoke an editor.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:06:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

"Seeing if it will stick" does not imply an unwillingness to explain, I
don't think. I also don't have a great deal of problem with FPAS's comment;
Proofreader was being a complete dick, and anything less than what FPAS
might have led to a SOUP situation. I agree with Anne that if this does
stick, it's moot.
---------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:18:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Changing to accept on Proofreader77

Well, because it was an indefinite block by an admin, not a community
ban, then because Proofreader has appealed to ArbCom, it is BASC's
problem now. Good luck with sorting that one out.

As for Future Perfect, I think he possible he is sliding back into the
behaviour that saw him desysopped at ArbCom. There are some admins
that are brusque (that is exactly the right word here), and whether or
not they go too far is debatable.

I noticed this comment on his talk page:

"Go away. You are being tedious. This is precisely the
"IDIDNTHEARTHAT" mentality I referred to, and I'm not going to play
your game by continuing debating you. Fut.Perf. ? 00:16, 15 February
2010 (UTC)"

Essentially, the pattern is being perfectly fine and OK up to a point,
and then when someone crosses a line, they get much sharper with their
comments. You see that sort of behaviour in the "brusque" admins and
former admins like Guy (JzG), William M. Connolley (WMC), and many
others. The normal end result is that (after lots of pressure builds
up) they burn out.

My view is that those admins that have a shorter fuse than others need
to be supported and/or pulled up every now and again, for their own
good, to stop them snapping and flaming out. But some are sensitive to
having their actions criticised, so it is a bit of a conundrum.

Carcharoth

PS. The unwillingness to explain bit was a reference to Gwen Gale.
----------

From: Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:22:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Note: BOKE (Proofreader77) added
to "Sustaining donors ($1, 000-4, 999)" on "Benefactors" page
Forwarding without comment.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Proofreader77
Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail - Note: BOKE (Proofreader77) added to "Sustaining
donors ($1,000-4,999)" on "Benefactors" page
To: Newyorkbrad


NOTE: I sent an email to the foundation
to confirm my donation ... which was
accomplished by adding my name to
the "Benefactors" page.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefa...o_.244.2C999.29
Sustaining donors ($1,000 to $4,999) BOKE <http://www.boke.com/>
(Proofreader77)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES:

Trans Date Post Date Type Description Transaction Number Amount

*01/02/2010* 01/04/2010 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... *$700.00*

*12/29/2009* 12/31/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... *$200.00*

*12/23/2009* 12/24/2009 Sale WIKIMEDIAFOUNDATION(Other) 5542... *$100.00*
----------

From:(Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:22:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - "rhetorical interaction"
(excerpt 12/29/09 msg to Jimbo) AND Two recent Barnstars

Forwarding with permission.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Proofreader77
Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail - "rhetorical interaction" (excerpt 12/29/09
msg to Jimbo) AND Two recent Barnstars
To: Newyorkbrad


FYI: An excerpt from a message from Proofreader77 to Jimbo Wales (12/29/09)
ALSO: Two recent Barnstars awarded by administrators to Proofreader77
(amidst the blocks)

[Permission granted to forward/post as desired]

Amidst the complexity of "all this" ... there is one framing concept I'd
like to posit:* "rhetorical interaction*."

And, the idea that* *there may be many *misperceptions *regarding what
Proofreader77 is doing.

---------BEGIN MESSAGE------

from Proofreader77
to Proofreader77
date Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:39 AM
subject *Copy of your message to Jimbo Wales: Wikipedia e-mail - Of
$1,000 donations [...] and Talk page rhetorical interaction [no reply
necessary]*

[BEGIN EXCERPT]
(3) Practical note: Most administrators do not have a sufficient
understanding of *"rhetorical interaction"* in discussions ... and so, often
make the wrong choice of action -- thereby maintaining/protecting "negative
patterns" and interfering with those who have competence in, e.g., "damping"
negative waves. (Enough for now. Perhaps for discussion in some leisured
future "conviviality." :-)
[END EXCERPT]

-------- END MESSAGE -------

NOTE ALSO: TWO RECENT BARNSTARS (amidst the blocks)

*The Socratic Barnstar* For bringing humor and surrealism to an already
unintentionally humorous and surreal
situation.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight>For
this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of
humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar.
They made him drink hemlock <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemlock>, the
worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for
you. Trusilver <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trusilver> 17:16, 5
January 2010 (UTC)

*The Original Barnstar* For an excellent
analysis<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam&diff=338297531&oldid=338289913>of
the distinction between adminship and content creation.
Stifle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stifle>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stifle>)
11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

BOKE
www.boke.com

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> Please advise if I may forward your e-mail to the full Arbitration
> Committee for review.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Proofreader77 wrote:
>
>> ArbCom either does or does not support the following:
>>
>> "I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. [...]" Equazcion (talk)
>> 19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
>>
>> "Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut
>> up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for
>> trolling." Fut.Perf. ? 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
>>
>> Fut.Perf. just indef blocked me for posting in the RfAR ... like they
>> blocked me for defending myself at AN
>>
>> That is textbook "online bullying."
>>
>> Perhaps you will help me fix it. I know how. I can.
>>
>> BOKE
>> www.boke.com
>>
>> --
>> This e-mail was sent by user "Proofreader77" on the English Wikipedia to
>> user "Newyorkbrad". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
>> Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:23:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail "online bullying"

Forwarding with permission.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Proofreader77
Date: Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail "online bullying"
To: Newyorkbrad


Yes: You (and Risker - who I've sent a slightly more elaborate message to)
are welcome to forward any communications from me to the Arbitration
Committee list.

NOTE (since this is quite complex now) ... I know how to do deal
with all the community contention ... but cannot do so if I am
constantly being blocked (inappropriately).

I am not a problem.
I am a solution.
And I donated $1,000 as a "good faith" gesture.

But Risker has a more complex version of this note.
You might ask her for a copy ... and tell her she
can forward that to the list as well.

Sincerely,
BOKE
www.boke.com



On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> Please advise if I may forward your e-mail to the full Arbitration
> Committee for review.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Proofreader77 wrote:
>
>> ArbCom either does or does not support the following:
>>
>> "I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. [...]" Equazcion (talk)
>> 19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)
>>
>> "Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut
>> up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for
>> trolling." Fut.Perf. ? 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
>>
>> Fut.Perf. just indef blocked me for posting in the RfAR ... like they
>> blocked me for defending myself at AN
>>
>> That is textbook "online bullying."
>>
>> Perhaps you will help me fix it. I know how. I can.
>>
>> BOKE
>> www.boke.com
>>
>> --
>> This e-mail was sent by user "Proofreader77" on the English Wikipedia to
>> user "Newyorkbrad". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
>> Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:36:34 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail "online bullying"

I have a serious problem with anyone who thinks they can bribe their way
out of blocks or sanctions - appropriate or otherwise.

----
User:Hersfold
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:45:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail "online bullying"

On 17/02/2010 6:36 PM, Hersfold wrote:
> I have a serious problem with anyone who thinks they can bribe their
> way out of blocks or sanctions - appropriate or otherwise.


My first reaction was "I thought buying indulgences was dreadfully out
of fashion this century?"

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Proofreader77)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:12:42 -0700
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

*22 MARCH 2010*
TIMELINE MARK: ~30 days since blanking and tagging of Proofreader77 user
pages
TIMELINE MARK: Google stops censoring its search results in
China<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html>

TECH NOTE (LAPTOP DYING): Mr. Wale's recent laptop trouble seems to be
spreading -- mine is now freezing every few minutes, and so this email may
likely be sent in rough notes form. And yes, my/Proofreader77's $1,000
donation to Wikipedia at the turn of 2010 came from my "replace-laptop
budget" ... But a rhetorical artist who discovers himself amidst a (public
interest) project ... recognizes the moment when a public gesture is
required as a timeline mark. On December 29, 2009, Mr. Wales had an opinion
piece in the Wall Street Journal on *cyberbullying *.... President Obama
made a statement regarding the intent to "*disrupt*" terrorists ... and
Proofreader77 was blocked (for "disruption") from editing Wikipedia for the
first time (amidst some confusion) for posting a note on User talk: Jimbo
Wales updating "A STORY OF CREATIVE GIVING" about his $1,000 donation to
Wikipedia.

Given that it is now 30 days since Wikipedia administrator Gwen Gale wiped
and indef-tagged my talk and user pages, it appears the* procedural
muddle*caused by the last 7 block log entries should be directed to
the Arbitration
Committee before the pages User: Proofreader77 and User talk: Proofreader77
are erased and the account deleted. Something that should not happen.

DOCUMENTATION NOTES: I have saved backup copies of all Proofreader77 pages
(including the contribution history) and there has finally been a successful
meta (including page histories) dump of English
Wikipedia<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-March/047110.html>(the
first that has not failed or been flawed in three years), the symbolic
implications of deleting the account Proofreader77 (and user and user talk
pages). CC LIST: The inclusion of two public email addresses of journalists
is symbolic notice of documentation of this communication.
*
BOKE <http://www.boke.com>*
Jim Boke Tomlin
<redacted>

------------------------

IN BRIEF: Unblock Proofreader77. The Arbitration Committee is well aware of
the prior improper behavior of administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. The
48 hour block of Proofreader77 for posting his defense at AN (in a matter
where an administrator had marked their user page {{deceased}}) ... and the
(current) indef block for posting his defense in the RfAR "Proofreader77
blocks" were improper administrative actions (outrageously so). Gwen Gale's
blocking, blanking, and tagging (for deletion) of the Proofreader77 user
pages were also improper. IMPROPER and COI.

NOTE: If the Arbitration Committee wishes to stop reading here and simply
unblock the account without wading through the rest of this ... *let us be
clear that no "false confession" will be made by Proofreader77*.

Proofreader77 is "guilty" of *documenting *events (diffs), including the
documentation of improper behavior of Wikipedia administrators (and others).
It is certainly understandable that those who have acted improperly would
wish to silence Proofreader77.

The issues of "*online bullying" *and *"restraint of speech"* will be
addressed. But yes, it does not appear that can be accomplished within
existing processes. Wikipedia has no Bill of Rights nor penalty for perjury
(*even presenting one's own defense is defined as a
crime*["wikilawyering"]), and so certain kinds of abuses are allowed,
supported,
and thereby encouraged. This matter is now "project level" for me. I'm
estimating two years to make a documentary film that clarifies the issues.

REMINDER/EXAMPLE:

*"I bet you were made fun of alot in high school. [...] Equazcion (talk)
19:54, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)*

*"Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut
up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for
trolling. Fut.Perf. ? 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)"*

*NOTE: CURRENT INDEF BLOCK is by Future Perfect at Sunrise*

NOTE: The Arbitration Committee is aware of Future Perfect's patterns of
abusive rhetorical behavior
Future Perfect at Sunrise admonished

22) Future Perfect at
Sunrise<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise>
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise> ?
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise>
?
blocks<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise>
?
protections<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/protect&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise>
?
deletions<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise>
?
moves<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/move&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise>
?
rights<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise>
) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude,
offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to
address the community's concerns in this regard. This is inappropriate for
any editor, but especially for an administrator.
Support:

1. ? *Rlevse* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlevse> ?
Talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse>?02:00, 20 May 2009
(UTC)
2. Kirill <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kirill_Lokshin>
[talk]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin>
[pf] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kirill_Lokshin/Professionalism>17:24,
23 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Some of those incidents may be more forgivable than others, but
despite the strained situation they are unacceptable in the aggregate. ?
Coren <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coren>
(talk)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coren>19:15, 23 May 2009
(UTC)
4. FloNight <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FloNight>???<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FloNight>01:41,
26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Casliber>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Casliber>
*?* contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Casliber>)
06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carcharoth>)
05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
7. *Roger Davies* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roger_Davies> *talk
* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roger_Davies> 01:40, 1 June
2009 (UTC)
8. In the event that #25 does not pass.
--bainer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Bain>
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephen_Bain>) 16:16, 1
June 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Coren. Newyorkbrad <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad>(
talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad>) 01:13, 3 June
2009 (UTC)
10. --Vassyana <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vassyana>
(talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vassyana>)
01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
11. John Vandenberg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayvdb>
*(chat<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayvdb>
)* 16:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Cool Hand <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cool_Hand_Luke>
*Luke<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke>
* 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:
Abstain:

*What remains to be determined is whether the Wikipedia Arbitration
Committee will allow the silencing of Proofreader77 (either by action, or
choosing to ignore this request).

ASSERTION: Proofreade77 has competence in rhetorical interaction, and could
help design processes to address the issues raised.* (Issues that the
$500,000 strategic consultants hwill not have any impact

BIG PICTURE: Wikipedia (for lack of proper design of process s to prevent or
counter it) not only attracts those whose online behavior is rhetorically
abusive, but also cultivates/trains online bullies. Proofreader77 has
claimed abuses have been perpetrated ... but the effect on BLP NPOV has not
been discussed yet (CONTEXT: Roman Polanski, California). In the big
picture, the combination of online bullying and the effect on BLPs is a
strategic problem for Wikipedia which in the future may have ramifications
in law (perhaps even a California ballot proposition).


----------------------------------------------------------------

AT GREATER LENGTH:

Preliminary matters:

*Real life identity of Proofreader77* (as revealed on User:Proofreader77 in
December 2009 before any blocks)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Proofreader77
&oldid=344733961#Real_life_identity_of_Proofreader77

*As a brief, thematic preamble* I note Google's action today regarding
China. A nation that blocks Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. A nation that
restrains speech. "Don't be evil." (I believe that should be sufficient
preamble for our purposes here, other than mentioning the documentary film I
will be making based on my 1,000 hours of volunteering within Wikipedia, in
any event.)

re: *CC list -* I am a public speaker, not a private negotiator. I have
symbolically included two public email addresses for a magazine editor and a
journalist. While they are both individuals I have exchanged communication
with in the past, and more recently sent email notes of my blocked status on
Wikipedia, I would not expect their assistants to pay much heed to this
"complex" document at this time. (Let us say that I have included them in
the cc list "for documentary purposes.")

re: Categories <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories>: Temporary
Wikipedian userpages<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages>-
I have saved copies of everything (including contribution history). There is
also a recent full English Wikipedia meta dump (with page histories).

re: "bizarre behavior" (Newyorkbrad) - Perhaps you should consider Wikipedia
administrator Rodhullandemu<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rodhullandemu>'s
marking his user page "{{deceased}}" ... and the profound absurdity of
administrator Gwen Gale's blocking someone (the first time) for discussion
of a $1,000 donation to Wikipedia.

re: Boke disambiguation (Casliber) - The information *removed *by
Proofreader77 had been placed there by someone on felony probation ... in a
case in which the California judge had asked Proofreader77 for his input on
whether to allow probation rather than prison ... and Proofreader77 provided
the requested information to the judge in the form of a rhetorical
Shakespearean sonnet. Proofreader77 concurred with probation, but the
perpetrator (who later was shown the sonnet by his attorney) was displeased
by the framing of the crime itself -- hence *the attack via Wikipedia*
... *and,
of thus how the Proofreader77 account came in to existence.*
*
*
*The story of how Proofreader77 came to be*
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Proofreader77
&oldid=344733961#The_story_of_how_Proofreader77_came_to_be

*
Members of the Arbitration Committee:*

Please excuse the delay in filing this *request for unblocking the
Proofreader77 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77>account* (the only account
with which I actively edit on Wikipedia, although I have an older inactive
account "Boke usa <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boke_usa>").*

*
NOTE: I have previously emailed a few individual members of the Arbitration
Committee (which I believe have been forwarded to the Committee's mailing
list) highlighting underlying issues of the Proofreader77 blocks: *"online
bullying"* and *"restraint of speech."*

*CONTEXT: 29 DECEMBER* *2009

(1) First block of Proofreader77*

23:03, 29 December 2009 Gwen Gale<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gwen_Gale>
(talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale> |
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gwen_Gale>
) blocked Proofreader77 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77> (
talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77> |
contribs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Proofreader77>
) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ? (Disruptive
editing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing>)

DIFF: Gwen Gale deletes "Update: A STORY OF CREATIVE GIVING"
(RE $1,000 DONATION TO WIKIPEDIA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=334805756

NOTE: Did Proofreader77 donate $1,000 to Wikipedia? Google
Proofreader77<http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Proofreader77&aq>

(2) December 29, 2009 Jimmy Wales and Andrea Weckerle Wall Street Journal,
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
*... Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.*

"... Finally, it's time to re-examine the current legal system. Online
hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address
this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states
in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal
input is needed.

The Internet is bringing about a revolution in human knowledge and
communication, and we have an unprecedented opportunity to make the global
conversation more reasonable and productive. But we can only do so if we
prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility
and incivility."

(3) December 29, 2009 New York Times: Text of Obama?s Comments on Airport
Security<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/us/politics/30obama-text.html?scp=3&sq=Obama%20%22to%20disrupt%22&st=cse>

... making real and daily progress in our mission
*to disrupt,* dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and
other extremist networks around the world.

COMMENT: Proofreader77 *disrupts:
*

- * vandalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>*,
- *BLP <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>*
NPOV<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV>violations,
- (improper) *restraint of speech* (by Wikipedia administrators acting
beyond their brief) Note: I have documented some diffs: "discussion
interference"
- and *online bullying. *

Proofreader77 is skilled in* rhetorical interaction*, with special
competence in *countering online bullying.*

A key method of countering bullying etc is *DOCUMENTATION* of improper
behavior. That either stops the bad behavior, or causes those acting badly
to act even worse. THEN it can be dealt with IF there exists a fair process
for addressing it.

ASSERTION: Proofreader77 is "guilty" of "DOCUMENTATION." And sometimes
"guilty" of "speaking" in rhetorical Shakespearean sonnets. That is ALL
Proofreader77 is "guilty" of.

NOTE: Proofreader77 has previously prevailed in traffic court in the matter
of the only traffic ticket he has received in California. (Proofreader77
does not make rhetorical or procedural errors. Proofreader77 does not lie
nor bullshit. Proofreader77 documents and presents the facts.)
*
**I have delayed in order to:*

(1) Determine if the Arbitration Committee is the only way to resolve a
situation caused by a procedural muddle. (It seems so.)

(2) Wait for the first successful full meta dump of English Wikipedia in a
long time to complete<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-March/047110.html>.
(The first in 1.5 years which didn't fail, and even that previous one turned
out to be flawed and no longer exists. So, the March 2010 meta dump is
apparently the first successful one in about 3 years. Note: A "meta" dump
includes page histories.)

(3) Observe the outcomes of the *ChildofMidnight
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChildofMidnight>*(banned for one year)
and *Trusilver <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trusilver>*("desysopped")
Arbitration cases.

- Note: ChildofMidnight, Trusilver, and Proofreader77 (and Wikipedia and
Google) are all *California *residents.
- Note: (Then administrator) Trusilver awarded Proofreader77 a
Socratic barnstar for the rhetorical Shakespearean sonnet which
currently resides at the top of ChildofMidnight's talk
page.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChildofMidnight>(Note
that it was originally posted at the ChildofMidnight RfC, but
improperly removed twice. More on that at another time, perhaps.)

*
On March 23, it will be 30 days* since Wikipedia administrator *Gwen
Gale*(improperly) responded to
*Proofreader77*'s* (my)* reasonable attempt to clear up a procedural muddle:

A procedural muddle caused when Wikipedia administrator *Future Perfect at
Sunrise *(improperly) "indefinitely blocked" the Proofreader77 account ...
apparently for the "crime"' of posting my evidence

A procedural muddle caused by six (now seven) additions to the Proofreader77
block log .... regarding one event and its aftermath (to wit: another
Wikipedia administrator, *Rodhullandemu*, marking his user page *
"{{deceased}}"* and my/Proofreader77's attempt to address what might have
indicated an emergency situation).

As you see, this is already complex, but let us be clear that the tenth
addition to the Proofreader77 block log (7th of the last seven regarding one
event, in addition to the THREE initial blocks which I had planned to bring
to the Arbitration CommitteBOKEe as a set of improper blocks)

- blocking of my talk page access
- blanking both user and talk pages of the account Proofreader77
- and adding "blocked indefinitely" templates (thereby marking them for
eventual deletion)

Any administrator would have been acting improperly given the content of my
statements, but Gwen Gale's actions were improper for reasons of COI
(Conflict of Interest)

(TECH NOTE: Since my laptop is choosing to break at this moment, I will
suspend further elaboration ... and send this note.)

BOTTOM LINE: The Arbitration Committee should unblock the Proofreader77
account.

Sincerely,

*BOKE <http://www.boke.com>*
Jim Boke Tomlin
<redacted>
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 6:23pm
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:50:48 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

This e-mail is pretty seriously giving me the impression that the problems
will persist if we unblock. Still, I guess this is BASC's turf.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Proofreader77 wrote:
> *22 MARCH 2010*
> TIMELINE MARK: ~30 days since blanking and tagging of
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:56:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Yes, I'd say a BASC-it case for sure.

Newyorkbrad

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> This e-mail is pretty seriously giving me the impression that the problems
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:57:41 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

I don't like you.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:

> Yes, I'd say a BASC-it case for sure.
----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:27:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

As a member of BASC, I'd be willing to vote DECLINE at this time on this..
but if Shell and Rlevse want to look at this, I'm willing to be persuaded.

David
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:37:54 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

I got this email personally (heaven only knows why!), and would be unwilling
to consider an unblock here. I think both Steve and NYB have hit the nail
on the head.

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:05:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

I agree, the problems don' t seem to have improved at all.

Shell Kinney
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:07:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Decline, that makes BASC unanimous.

R
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:09:03 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to
the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Yeah, can we just respond with one of Randy's trademark "NO"'s?

----
User:Hersfold
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:59:33 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Maybe a bit more formal and politer than that, but still a firm no.
Why can't people understand that Wikipedia isn't a place for
performance art, rambling streams of consciousness, and other similar
things? If people just showed they understood what they did that was
wrong or less than ideal, and just said sorry and asked for another
chance, they would probably get it, heavens knows there are enough
people on this committee (me included, and even some of those you
wouldn't think would give second chances), who would be prepared to do
that, even with conditions attached, but no, people insist on righting
great wrongs and digging themselves deeper into whatever hole they are
in. Probably the type of person that gets blocked in this type of
situation doesn't normally have the humility and self-awareness to
step back and apologise and take a different approach.

And no, that wasn't a stream of consciousness! :-)

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Hersfold)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:01:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to
the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Proofreader77,

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your request, and has decided
to decline your appeal. The rest of the Arbitration Committee agrees
with this decision. Based on the content of your email, the Committee
sees no indication that the problems for which you were blocked have
improved, or will do so in the near future.

The Committee may be willing to consider another appeal of your
indefinite block in six month's time; should you do so, we would ask
that your appeal be presented in a clear manner and focus primarily on
your own actions and how you seek to improve upon past incidents.
Convoluted or "rough draft" requests such as this one make an appeal
very difficult to review, and significantly reduce the chances that an
appeal will be accepted.

For the Arbitration Committee,

----
User:Hersfold
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:10:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Unblock request for account Proofreader77 to the
Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Perfect! Thanks. Though technically we hardly ever all give our
opinions, saying "all" is OK here, rather than some convoluted
wording. But that's me being pedantic. :-)

Carcharoth
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Proofreader77
post Tue 19th July 2011, 5:32pm
Post #3


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon 25th Jan 2010, 5:30am
From: California
Member No.: 16,819

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Many thanks.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th 10 14, 12:57pm