Changes

Back in 2012, I was a senior editor on Wikipedia and could boast tens of thousands of edits as well as a clean eight-year track record. I was especially active in a forum called “requested moves.” Then an editor I will refer to as “IIO” began picking fights with me. Day after day, he complained about me in one forum after another. He put an astonishing amount of time and energy into harassing and stalking me, apparently jealous of my unofficial status as "RM expert." After a full year of this, the powers that be decided that the simplest solution was to ban me.

Back in 2012, I was a senior editor on Wikipedia and could boast tens of thousands of edits as well as a clean eight-year track record. I was especially active in a forum called “requested moves.” Then an editor I will refer to as “IIO” began picking fights with me. Day after day, he complained about me in one forum after another. He put an astonishing amount of time and energy into harassing and stalking me, apparently jealous of my unofficial status as "RM expert." After a full year of this, the powers that be decided that the simplest solution was to ban me.

The banning discussion that followed was obviously rigged. It was full of people I'd never heard of up to that point, as well as other people IIO had recruited. They must have been canvassed together somehow. One editor accused me of multiple voting. No actual case was mentioned. This was a drive by editor making a wild guess as to what the fuss was all about. The other votes were even less specific as to what misdeed I had supposedly done. Not a single diff was presented -- a diff being Wikipedia's version of evidence.

The ANI discussion that followed was obviously rigged. It was full of people I'd never heard of up to that point, as well as other people IIO had recruited. Although no compelling arguments were presented, everyone voted to ban me. So they must have been canvassed together somehow. One editor accused me of multiple voting. No actual case was mentioned. This was apparently a drive-by editor, someone making a wild guess as to what the fuss was all about. The other votes were even less specific. They typically did little more than toss around ANI clichés like "disruptive" and "Hasn't he been banned already?" Not a single diff was presented -- a diff being Wikipedia's version of evidence.

I was prevented from participating in the ban discussion by a series of blocks. Wikipedia has hundreds of admins, and they can block as they like, a power they need to deal with spammers and trolls. But an editor who has been around for a while generally receives some degree of due process and procedural protection, including second chances, topic bans, and interaction bans. I never even got a warning, although this is standard procedure even for beginning users.

I was prevented from participating in the ban discussion by a series of blocks. Wikipedia has hundreds of admins, and they can block as they like, a power they need to deal with spammers and trolls. But an editor who has been around for a while generally receives some degree of due process and procedural protection, including second chances, topic bans, and interaction bans. I never even got a warning, although this is standard procedure even for beginning users.