Changes

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To bring up the same set of complaints repeatedly is called "forum shopping." In fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the discussion which resulted in my being banned] consists almost entirely of references to previous discussions. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. No one suggested that that I was an experienced editor who made mistakes. No, I was an interloper who never belonged on Wikipedia. This is quite a lot of smugness when you consider that I had about the same level of experience as many of the people in the discussion.

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To bring up the same set of complaints repeatedly is called "forum shopping." In fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the discussion which resulted in my being banned] consists almost entirely of references to previous discussions. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. No one suggested that that I was an experienced editor who made mistakes. No, I was an interloper who never belonged on Wikipedia. This is quite a lot of smugness when you consider that I had about the same level of experience as many of the people in the discussion.

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 o f 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.

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 remove a post a made concerning my essay on gender categories. Perhaps this essay play a role in some internal discussion that I wasn't a party to. I find it unlikely that that the buffoons in the banning discussion were the real decision makers.

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 about Wikipedia. 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/] 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]

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. Based on what Gardner has said and written, I gather that I represent everything she hates about Wikipedia. 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/] 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==