Changes

One editor in the banning discussion suggests that I used multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. Although the post does not give the name of the RM in which this nefarious activity allegedly occurred, this is the closest thing I saw to a specific accusation. It is complete nonsense. In fact, the entire subject of multiple voting had never even come up earlier. The post was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.

One editor in the banning discussion suggests that I used multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. Although the post does not give the name of the RM in which this nefarious activity allegedly occurred, this is the closest thing I saw to a specific accusation. It is complete nonsense. In fact, the entire subject of multiple voting had never even come up earlier. The post was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.

As an ex-Wikipedian, editors are now free to post personal attacks against me. They even give out my real name, supposedly a big no-no under WP:OUTING. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and removed my most effective arguments. When I took my story to Wikipediocracy. I was blocked almost immediately with the notation, "If they didn't let you get away with this on Wikipedia, you certainly can't do it here." Apparently, my essay on gender categories had offended someone with the authority to ban me on both sites. Sue Gardner was executive director at that time. She managed Wikipedia in a very political way, and aggressively pushed left-wing points of view in numerous discussions.

As an ex-Wikipedian, editors are now free to post personal attacks against me. They even give out my real name, supposedly a big no-no under WP:OUTING. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and removed my most effective arguments.

*'''Update.''' From what I have read of Gardner's writing, I can say that I proudly represent everything she hates: "the crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards,"[http://m.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/] the guy who favors "accuracy" over "kindness,"[http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/] and the guy thinks "Ganges" is an excellent name for a river in India.[http://www.fastcompany.com/1739776/wikipedias-librarian-world]

When I took my story to Wikipediocracy, I was blocked almost immediately with the notation, "If they didn't let you get away with this on Wikipedia, you certainly can't do it here." So somebody with authority to ban on both sites must have decided my case, which limits the list of suspects. Sue Gardner was executive director at that time. From what I have read of Gardner's writing, it's pretty clear that I represent everything she hates: I'm certainly "the crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards;"[http://m.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/] I'm also the guy who favors "accuracy" over "kindness;"[http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/] and, on top of that, I'm the guy who thinks "Ganges" is an excellent name for a river in India.[http://www.fastcompany.com/1739776/wikipedias-librarian-world]

==See also==

==See also==