Better to not leave messages for me here, because I don't always look at meta. Put them on: en:User talk:Jimbo Wales

all subpages T · m:special:CentralAuth

Appeal of English Wikipedia ban

I sent you an e-mail regarding my ban from the English Wikipedia and am just leaving a message here to confirm if you have received the message and are examining my appeal. Since I know you are more active on there than here should any of your talk page watchers post it over there then I am fine with a response on the English Wikipedia. This situation has caused me a good deal of stress and so I would like some sort of word on whether this ban is being investigated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No offense, because I think the way you were banned shows why the Arbcom needs to be abolished, but Jimbo is not going to do anything. He never has and never will. Frankly, the WMF and or the communities should remove his ability to even be appealed because its nothing more than a waste of time. I hope he proves me wrong, I really do, but the fact is he just doesn't care what goes on in the projects anymore and he is afraid to go against the Arbcom and everyone, including the Arbcom, know it. Good luck though. My advice would be to just create a new account per Ignore all rules and keep editing. Reguyla (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Spot on Reguyla. If you're account is banned 7 years ago, now you're mature, you make a new account with only positive edits, is considered sockpuppetry. The definition of sockpuppetry is definently getting wider, to say the least. On an unrelated note; why has nobody in the WMF responded to the fact outing is allowed on Roman Wikipedia, and removing it from your own userpage and talk is vandalism? We need to create a force to help wikis that aren't English, including the Simple English Wikipedia. Just click this and it will all come true. 96.237.20.21 14:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Sure maturity is certainly one example. but more importantly the culture and system assumes that if someone was ever banned or blocked for any reason then from that point on until the end of time they cannot edit. It's also problematic that the same people who did the block are often the first people to deny the appeal. The corporate memory never forgets and that is one reason why edits are down, editors are down with more leaving every day, less people are joining the sites and stating, etc. Too many bad blocks being retained for too long for no reason other than out of spite. Outing is allowed on the English Wikipedia too. Its well known that one of the Arbitrators advocated getting me fired from my day job because I refused to stop editing when a couple people manipulated policy to get me banned by submitting ban requests every couple weeks until they got one to stick and now they continue to extraordinary lengths, even ignoring and violating the sites policies to keep me banned. That kind of manipulation and blatant violations of policy are exactly why I continue to actively advocate that Jimbo have his tools removed and why the WMF needs to start doing some oversight and checks and balances of the projects. To make sure that policy violations by the sites admins and functionaries are being dealt with. Because right now its the wild west and the admins and functionaries are just doing whatever they want with no oversight or accountability. The fact is Jimbo failed to do his job a long time ago and now he is completely helpless. So its time to find someone with a strong ethical commitment to the project, who isn't just trying to rub elbows with celebrities and meet women, who can do some oversight of the wiki's. Reguyla (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Sadly, today "best wiki admin" is defined by most famous one. Off of that, the WMF Board's job should be a pact of good, strong sysops and stewards such as Vituzzu and Tegel. 96.237.20.21 01:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I agree and its also problematic that content creators rarely become admins. It's usually the people who decide early on they want to be admins and start working in those areas and building up their career doing the stuff for deletion boards, working as Arbcom clerks, etc. That's not building an encyclopedia to me, that's building a bureaucracy and that's not something we need on the projects. We need more content editors, no politicians who are only interested in pushing their POV and feeling important. Reguyla (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Speaking of bureaucracy, bureaucrats (the rank) seem to take over admins recently. We should also learn even regular editors with no edits such as this and this. Some accounts seem to be created with no edits and make up most of Wikipedia. I hope we can find out who made these. But otherwise, these are probably good editors without any activity. The first was created on August 26, 2014, and the second was created on September 3, 2010. Big time gap. There are some obsessive users, who tend to take thousands (sometimes a million even!) off of our time. We need to remember this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and not a fighting arena. As for below, IMHO someone needs legal action taken against. I know confidential information (an IP used by Jimbo, which nobody knows, and Grawp's IRL name, which every admin knows) that I probably shouldn't disclose, yet they are treated only as harshly as TDA is. 96.237.20.21 15:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Unused accounts are made for a lot of reasons. Some by sockmasters, some by well meaning people who are considering editing or want it for a watchlist or related activities they can do without one. My guess though is that most of these, at least recently, are because of the global account process. So if someone creates an account in say Wikidata or Commons, then it also creates an account elsewhere to link to it. Especially if they click on a link and then get taken to that wiki. Reguyla (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Back to the main, if the WMF doesn't take action I may disclose the IP address to a steward. But since the WMF would take lousy action if I disclosed Jimbo's IP, I'll just go ahead and let you (Reguyla) say your opinion about the legal topic. 96.237.27.238 19:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah until recently I got harassed by someone I wont name that likes to send out nasty emails who lives in the Chicago area. I found out who it was and called him at his mother's house. Problem solved, for now at least. Of course they are not the only one though. Reguyla (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't see this earlier Reguyla: The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Back on; who's up for investigating the ban? I am. Arbcom got corrupt probably because the Audit Commitee fell. 96.237.27.238 14:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC) For what its worth, there are those that aren't fond of me either. But on both your case and mine a lot of people recognize that the bans were not done the right way or for the right reasons but won't do anything about it. You may also be surprised to hear that most of what was said about you on Wikipediocracy with regards to the ban was in your favor. The Arbcom grossly overstepped their authority and virtually everyone, including them, recognize it. Unfortunately though it's unlikely that Jimbo or anyone else will will do anything because there is no oversight over the admins or arbitrators on ENWP and no one has the morale courage to do anything about them. Jimbo just doesn't have the projects interests at heart anymore IMO so he's probably a lost cause. I also tried to get him to review my case and instead of do the right thing he insulted me. So I for one frankly have no respect for him anymore and don't think he should even be allowed to be involved in the projects anymore. He was relieved of his duties at the WMF for a lack of morale character and I have seen nothing since to change my mind. It's time for the projects to let him go. Good luck though, I hope he does act in your favor and do the right thing for once. Reguyla (talk) 16:08, 21 February 201::: From my findings of fact, and the fact Jimbo has failed to show any legal action against Grawp also, I will expose the IP (which he no longer uses but he used it once) and just hope the WMF doesn't let off a red siren. I think it was a good idea they made Miniapolis a clerk, but they rest aren't very good ideas. Maybe, instead of the Audit Subcommitee falling and Arbcom staying the same, it should be the other way around. 96.237.27.238 19:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I definitely want to know if he looked at what I sent him and whether he reached some decision about it. Should he be standing by ArbCom, then I would want to know before I consider anything else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Stay calm. The WMF has a high probability of banning all 3 of us. Especially because of the Jimbo IP thing. 96.237.27.238 12:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Oh, I'm just talking about using other internal procedures if this doesn't work out. As things stand I'm not allowed to appeal to ArbCom for six months and since it is clear from public comments that they are not going to back away from their decision, an appeal to Jimbo is the only method I have available within English Wikipedia's internal procedures. Seeking a community decision wouldn't be possible given the secrecy of the matter. Failing at the English Wikipedia level means I have to take this up to the general Wikimedia level in order to get some relief.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC) The Arbcom has never, as far as I know, ever unbanned someone at the minimum limit. Usually it's a minimum year and normally it requires multiple years. Personally I think you would be much better off doing a Meta RFC to the wider community. Arbcom can choose to hold their secret evidence ruling, but the entire community, including ENWP's will be able to comment here and there is little that the Arbcom can do about it. Meta offers a good, neutral location for all to discuss the issues and is much better than the environment of ENWP that the Arbcom controls. Especially because you cannot appeal there, Meta seems the logical place to do so. Reguyla (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Some sort of community process here is definitely something I was considering, but the problem with a straight appeal is that I only have a reasonable suspicion about what caused it and can't know if there were counter-claims or other claims used as a basis for the ban. Additionally, if it is what I think then I can't really explain all the details as it would involve outing the admin I reported and people would be less likely to support an appeal of the ban if they couldn't be sure of what I reported.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) I know 4 people abused by Arbcom: you 2, Abd, and Kevin Gorman. You 2 and Abd were hit with multiple blows that lead up to a ban caused by a community swayed by Arbcom, while Gorman was desysopped for little reason. And that's also not to mention Soap. I agree with Reaper Eternal that Gorman has been abused far beyond reason. 96.237.27.238 22:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) I wished I could only name 4, personally I think Arbcom has made more bad decisions than good ones and often times the decisions they make only make matters worse. Reguyla (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Oh, and OccultZone. Bbb23 should be an arb, not a bunch of people who want to push their POV on users and feel important. 96.237.27.238 16:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Also, if you want to be heard go on Meta, where there is no Arbcom over you, or deWP and frWP, where the Arbcom is less corrupt. Another issue is the rampaging POV pushing, battleground mentality, disruption, and baseless Arbcom rulings are treated well, while excessive content creating is overpunished. 96.237.27.238 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I strongly disagree. I have found Bbb23 to be an arrogant know it all who thinks they are never wrong and almost never reconsiders their decisions. He would not be a suitable arb IMO. We need more people like Worm that turned, Fluffernutter, Dennis Brown and 28bytes who review the problem and make an unbiased decision after doing their due diligence on the case. Not the current group of self servers that only want to be in a position of power to push their own POV. Reguyla (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry: I've only dealt with 2 admins, Bbb23 and Ohnoitsjamie and I prefer the former. I can say these have also worked involving me and had minor contact: Lor

Wgolf

Mark Arsten

MaxSem

Mudwater

INeverCry

Kelapstick

JamesBWatson

PhilKnight

Foxj

Ponyo

IagoQnsi

Vsmith

RHAWorth

Gogo Dodo

Discospinster

Huon

Rubbish computer Also, who is Dennis Brown? I know nothing about him. I know almost nothing about 28bytes, and know small bits about WTT and Fluffernutter. 96.237.18.15 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have sent you two e-mails requesting a response to this thread or via e-mail to say whether or not you have received my appeal and are considering, or have considered, the appeal. At this point it has been over a month since I first e-mailed you my appeal and about a week-and-a-half since I last e-mailed you asking for a response. Would you please respond? Should you be still considering the appeal, have rejected it, or obviously if you have accepted it, I would want to know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Noting for anyone on Wikipediocracy reading this, it is pretty clear that Jimbo is doing nothing about my situation or the circumstances of my ban. I e-mailed him nearly two months ago with two other e-mails sent in addition to this discussion on his Meta page and I have yet to receive so much as a response from him on the matter here or via e-mail. Whether the Village Pump discussion on Wikipedia will make any difference is something I am waiting to see before I do anything else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I also emailed him asked more generally to check his meta page once in a while but I don't expect a response either. My hope is when the global notification is implemented he will get a ping and come here and check it but probably not. Jimbo really doesn't care about these projects at all anymore and the only one he even comments on at all is the English Wikipedia. Even then he doesn't do anything useful. Frankly I think the only reason he comments there is to maintain a few edits so he doesn't get desysopped and keep enough support to keep his seat on the board. If it wasn't for that he wouldn't comment at all. He has no value on these projects anymore and hasn't for many years. Good luck.Reguyla (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC) He's been on Meta since this thread started, specifically right around the same time there was back and forth in this thread. I can only assume that he has seen it, but he is just not doing anything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC) As I have said before. Jimbo lacks the desire, morale courage or political capital to do anything. He should have resigned his admin tools a long time ago and any mention of him being a recourse of review of any action should be removed with prejudice from any policies it's written. He has never and will never do anything that requires him to show some leadership. He was fired from his job at the WMF and should not be allowed anywhere near the projects. I hope he proves me wrong and contacts you but I think we both know he won't because he's too busy stroking his own ego and playing God king. Reguyla (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Reguyla, I think your comment above goes well beyond what is appropriate for a user talk page. I reverted, in the hopes that you would recognize this and temper your approach; but you have instead restored the comment. OK. You are factually wrong, Jimmy Wales was never fired from WMF; that is a rather preposterous assertion. But beyond that point, a user's absence from their talk page is not license to pile on escalating insults. User talk pages exist for discussion, not for ridicule. -Pete F (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Peteforsyth: Reguyla (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC) You're correct about the edit history, sorry for getting that wrong. I still think your comment is over the top, and violates any reasonable standard for user talk pages. Being absence does not give others license to launch unmitigated insults. -Pete F (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) I tell you what, when Jimbo apologizes for encouraging people to out me to my employer in an attempt to get me fired from my job for editing Wikipedia, then I will apologize for my comments. Deal? Because that sort of conduct is beyond low and shows his morale compass isn't pointing north. Reguyla (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, just though I'd point out that it has now been two months since I first e-mailed you and there has not been a single response. Not even so much as a courtesy reply to acknowledge receipt of any of my e-mails. Maybe you could consider weighing in with your opinions on this discussion? At the very least you should say what your position is on ArbCom's behavior. Something. Anything. Please.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I am even more curious to get a comment from you on my ArbCom ban appeal. During another discussion about an unrelated case on the English Wikipedia someone linked to this old RfC. I know it was eight years ago, but your statement there in closing that RfC discussion was pretty absolute:

I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)

That is a lot of emphatic insistence that not only are secret trials where the accused has no chance to present a defense verboten but that ArbCom would never do such a thing in the first place, and that you would overturn any ArbCom decision of that nature. It is pretty clear my case has been exactly that kind of trial. Only after my ban came down was I even aware that I was being considered for a ban and I have not yet been told what it is that supposedly led to my ban, making it essentially impossible for me to present a defense as I can only guess at the reasons.

Why then have you allowed this ArbCom decision to stand despite your previous pledge to overturn what you thought was never a possibility in the first place? Are you not getting my messages? Did you not see any of this discussion on the ArbCom mailing list when it was brought up? If you have adjusted your stance regarding this despite what ArbCom's own arbitration policy states then I think this warrants an explanation. This especially warrants a response as a community discussion related to my case has reaffirmed overwhelming opposition to this kind of proceeding.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Addressing what has been stated, I did naturally suspect that my e-mail to the Committee is what precipitated my ban, but it is the context of that e-mail that makes it so unthinkable. What I sent to the Committee was not some sort of confession to serious wrongdoing nor an act of wrongdoing in itself. Rather I was reporting an admin's long-term undisclosed COI editing to the Committee, including more than instance where administrative privileges were used. I had been aware of this admin's COI editing for a while and warned the admin that if it continued I would take the matter to the Committee. Despite a period where that COI editing ceased, it eventually resumed and I asked this admin to just reverse the most recent violations. When that didn't happen and the misconduct still continued I offered the admin one last chance to disclose the COI, as required by policy, or I would report it to the Committee. The admin did nothing and so I reported it.

My only presumption, if they are truly basing their claims entirely on that situation, is that the Committee is arguing that somehow by trying to warn this admin against breaking COI policy I somehow "harassed" the admin. While I easily envisioned how someone might twist or distort the situation that way as it by necessity involves the person's real-life identity, I did presume I would at least have the chance to respond or that they would tell me. They did say they were discussing my e-mail, but I just believed that meant they were considering action against the admin I reported. It would have been easy to mention when acknowledging discussion of my e-mail that they were considering action against me, not the admin. Failing to do that in retrospect just seems like an attempt at convincing me that they took the evidence seriously when they were really planning to turn this around on me, basically offering false assurances so I would feel safe and not expect it.

So if you are wondering how I could possibly "not know" it is because despite generally being cynical and pessimistic about people in authority there are certain things I think are beyond them. Banning me as a "harasser" for trying to privately warn an admin against violating the COI policies and then reporting the admin when those warnings were disregarded while taking no action at all to prevent the admin from breaking COI policy again (and it did happen again after my ban) is one of those things. I also didn't know what discussions occurred so I had no way of knowing if other allegations of harassment were brought into this by members of the Committee on their own or by the admin I accused, or if they just cooked up some other claim of harassment. I don't think for one moment the Committee could get away with banning me in a public case over the situation I e-mailed them about and doing nothing about the person I reported.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who was banned in retaliation to criticizing admins I empathize with your situation. I knew it would happen again to someone else for similar reasons and have stated that repeatedly. I'm sorry it was you and I'm sorry Jimbo is such a wimp that he refuses to show any leadership and do the right thing yet again. People wonder why I continue to disregard myban on EnWP and edit using alternate accounts, this is precisely why. By simply taking abusive conduct by admins who are allowed to violate policy merely because they are admins, to me, is unthinkable. If the Arbcom is too corrupt to do anything and Jimbo and the WMF are too weak to do anything then all we can do as editors is to make sure that these measures are ineffective.

I know you are loath to do it, but my recommendation to you is to just edit anyway. Create another account and make positive edits. If the account gets blocked and the edits vandalized then repeat as many times as necessary. Do not let the Arbcom bully you out of Wikipedia to support another problematic admin and a corrupt culture where admins are above reproach and the sites policies. Cheers and good luck. Reguyla (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Nah, I have have never socked in all my time on the Internet and I don't intend to start now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As Jimbo has posted a more detailed explanation of what he thinks I did, I will just address this quote by quote:

The harassment was confessed to in extensive detail by the now-banned user, in an email to ArbCom. The idea that ArbCom didn't let him speak his side of the matter is simply not true - he spoke it in volumes. Printed out, it is 7 pages of wall-to-wall text detailing a campaign of harassment over an extended period of time (over a year)

Over the course of the e-mail to the Committee I mention contacting the admin three times, that is I had e-mailed the admin three whole times over the course of a year, and it is the only time I discuss my own conduct and that conduct as described by me would boil down to "I warned this person I knew about the misconduct and would report it if it continued yet the misconduct continued so I sent another warning, then another after it continued still, and then I came here because it wasn't working." That may amount to 10% of the e-mail. The vast majority of the e-mail consists of links to evidence against the admin and explanations of said evidence.

including detailed investigations into another users personal life

Seeing as this involved conflict of interest editing and proving that to the Committee required proving the editor's identity, I did match various personal details up with the admin's edits on Wikipedia. Every single personal detail can be discerned by reading the Wikipedia article under this admin's real name. Many professional details that proved this individual's identity and provided examples of COI editing were also gleaned from reading the admin's Wikipedia bio.

Half the e-mail concerns the specific subjects where the admin would eventually abuse administrative privileges despite having a conflict of interest, and it was in looking at those incidents that I first learned of the COI. Some of the professional friendships were confirmed by simply using public search functions checking the admin's real name against said individuals. Evidence I presented in the latter regard mostly concerned the edits made since my initial block in early October. Another instance prior to that came up incidentally when doing a basic search for anything said about Wikipedia under the admin's real name.

repeated threats to that user to out him

Nope. I certainly never claimed to have threatened such a thing in my e-mail to ArbCom. What I did say when talking to the admin is that disclosing a COI might result in people figuring out the admin's identity and I later said if ArbCom did take public action others might learn the admin's identity. After I reported the admin to ArbCom I did suggest, in my fourth total e-mail to the admin, that the admin prepare for the possibility that public action results in others realizing the admin's identity, but I expressly said I would not reveal anything I know. Claiming I threatened to out this admin is not supported by any e-mail I sent to the Committee or to the admin. This seems to be a misconstruing of my words.

opposition research

This one is funny to me, though unfortunately most of the people paying attention to this aren't in on the joke. Obviously, this is attempting to invoke the idea of opposition research as outlined in the harassment policy, however here are some key quotes from that policy:

Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy).

However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one.



Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits.

Here is a relevant passage from the COI policy:

When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser.

Any suggestion that I violated the policy on opposition research would have to square with the fact that both policies expressly say it does not apply to investigating COI editing and that warnings about policy violations are fine as well as tracking an editor's contributions for policy violations. With COI cases, determining whether a policy violation has occurred necessitates cross-checking with information about the editor's life outside Wikipedia. Nothing I did goes against these policies.

For those saying I knew, might I remind you it is my mind we are talking about here and none of you are an authority on it. A distinction exists between knowing and suspecting. What I made clear from the beginning is that I had a suspicion about what prompted it given the timing, but that I didn't know if that was the totality of their claim, if it was several things in addition to that, or if there was some completely separate thing they were claiming as harassment. I rather plainly couldn't know what they were talking about since the only comment I received from them was a notification from GorillaWarfare that my e-mail, i.e. my detailed report of serious admin misconduct, was being discussed. The evidence I submitted in that report would be enough to get any admin desysopped. Any suggestion that my first thought should be "I'm going to get banned for being a bad naughty robot" rather than "Thank goodness, they are taking it seriously as I believed they would given the evidence" is silly.

All indications are that they made a point of withholding the fact that a ban was being discussed, withholding their belief that I had engaged in harassment, and withholding what it concerned. Mind you, I directly asked in my first e-mail following the ban what it was they were claiming I did, if it was about that e-mail, but there was no response. Not only that their initial ban announcement plainly stated I was harassing editors plural, which would certainly not be the case if it were solely in relation to my e-mail, another point I noted at the time. What is worse is that one of the recused Arbs insinuated I had been allowed to say something in my defense, when the truth is I didn't know I needed to do anything in my defense as I wasn't aware I was on trial. The same Arb later blocked my e-mail access on Wikipedia despite having recused on the ban.

Just so we are clear regarding the warning remedy as you and others think this is some sort of out for the Committee, Tarc had one with identical wording from the same case and he too was banned, but he had a chance to discuss it with the Arbs beforehand. He was not caught by surprise at the turn of the New Year with claims of him harassing editors plural after submitting a report to the Committee about serious long-term misconduct by an admin.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the well written explanation TDA. This should clarify to anyone who takes the time to read it (including Jimbo:

You did an excellent job of summarizing the situation without releasing any personal information. This again brings up my previous concerns that the Arbcom is not functioning in a net positive manner. They are manipulating their procedures and the way the committee operates to best serve their own interests and that Jimbo and the WMF are complacent and negligent in their interactions and dealings with this problematic committee. The statements that Jimbo has released obviously grossly mischaracterizes the situation. Jimbo and the Arbcom are merely targeting the non admin editor to distract away from the bigger problem of a problematic admin using their position abusively. Jimbo should be ashamed of himself. The community is understandably outraged by this obviously abusive tactic by the Arbcom. Reguyla (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Emails

ArbCom and Jimbo seem absolutely confident if everyone saw these e-mails that they would fully support my ban. I am not going to release them in totality since that would mean revealing information I have pledged to keep private. However, I can think of no reason why people can't see redacted versions of these e-mails to get a sense of what was being said so they may judge for themselves. First off is the very first e-mail I sent back in August 2014.

I just noticed your [redacted action] back in [redacted time] and, while I sympathize with your reasoning, it was inappropriate for you to be the one [redacted action]. As a personal friend and colleague of [redacted name] any edits you make regarding him are subject to the policy on conflicts of interest. Using your administrative privileges to [redacted action] that he had [redacted action] is egregious, especially given how you avoided disclosing your close personal ties to [redacted name] and your history in [redacted action] over the objections of other editors and admins. For now there appears to be no [redacted consequence], so I am not going to ask to have the [redacted action] reviewed on the basis of your COI. However, given your demonstrated partiality on various matters where you have a conflict of interest I will ask that you refrain from taking any actions on such matters unless you publicly disclose your conflict of interest. That does not require disclosure of your identity, though it may inadvertently lead to it being revealed. Just so you are aware, I can convincingly prove your conflict of interest due to research I did [redacted reasons for research]. To wit, I know you are [redacted name]. So, if I see you engage in inappropriate COI activity in the future, especially if it should involve the use of your administrative tools, I will promptly inform the Arbitration Committee of your COI activities and request a review of your conduct as an editor and an administrator. You seem to generally do good work on Wikipedia, even if [redacted details], so I hope you agree to abide by policy from this point forward. Take care.

Over a year later, after COI editing resumed I sent this e-mail:

I sent you an e-mail in late August of last year regarding a conflict of interest you have on [redacted topic]. At the time I requested that you refrain from editing articles where you had a conflict of interest unless you publicly disclosed that conflict of interest. Given that you had used your administrative privileges on matters where you had a conflict of interest I also mentioned that I would raise this matter with ArbCom if you continued to edit articles where you had a conflict of interest, especially if it involved use of your admin tools. You never acknowledge receipt of e-mail to promise to comply with my request, but from monitoring your activity it does appear that you have until recently complied all the same. Unfortunately, this [redacted action] was not appropriate: [redacted evidence] Your claim of unsourced information would appear to apply only to two claims that could have easily been removed without a blanket revert. One was the statement that [redacted details] and the other claim was that [redacted details]. Had you just removed those claims, I would consider that acceptable. I would even be understanding if you had [redacted details] as that is a milder BLP issue. However, you appear to have used those issues as a pretext to restore your own unsourced promotional wording and remove relevant sourced material regarding [redacted details]. Given that there were legitimate BLP concerns with some of the changes, I am going to ask that you just restore those other changes as they were not BLP violations. Obviously, if there are typos I am not going to ask that you restore those parts of the edit unaltered, but otherwise only make edits to the restored version that address a BLP issue and go no further than necessary in addressing it. Should you wish to retain any of your unsourced material that had been removed in that version, it should be backed by a reliable secondary source.

Here is the e-mail I sent a couple months later when the admin continued violating the COI policy:

Two months ago, I requested that you reverse several actions you made on [redacted details] due to you having a conflict of interest on the matter. Not only did not do that, even if someone else did, you have since made several edits to other articles where you have a conflict of interest. That includes edits to your friend [redacted name]'s article, editing the article for [redacted name] to link to the article you created on your friend, and editing the article [redacted name] in a manner that violates BLPCRIME when [redacted details] as part of some personal crusade. All of these actions go against my request that you avoid editing matters where you have a conflict of interest as [redacted name]. Since I presume you are reading my e-mails, this can only mean you do not want to abide by the conflict of interest policy and other policies. Given your prior use of admin tools on matters where you have a conflict of interest, that also means there is a risk of future admin abuse. At this point, I have no confidence that polite requests will suffice, so I will have to be more drastic and immediate. Disclose that you have a conflict of interest regarding all the articles I mention earlier in this e-mail, the [redacted name] article given your [redacted action], and the [redacted name] given your history, by the end of this week. Should you refuse and not publicly acknowledge your conflict of interest editing, I will report you to ArbCom at the beginning of next week. I am sincerely disappointed that you could not bring yourself to respect Wikipedia's policies even after I warned you I would take it to ArbCom. Either way this turns out it will likely cause you some public embarrassment on Wikipedia at least, but I hope you choose the least contentious option and disclose your misconduct. Bringing in the Arbitration Committee will only make things even worse for you and draw more prying eyes to the situation.

Here now is the e-mail I sent to ArbCom:

For [redacted time] I have been aware that [redacted name]. I will detail the evidence below, but the key issue here is that [redacted gender] has on numerous occasions edited matters where [redacted gender] has a conflict of interest. That includes instances where [redacted name] has used [redacted gender] admin tools. Since [redacted gender] actions and the evidence involves a lot of personal information, it cannot be handled in any public case. First of those actions regards [redacted name], which [redacted name] created and which [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] After [redacted details], [redacted name] [redacted action]: [redacted evidence] Not only was [redacted gender] involved as the article's creator, [redacted name] has been directly involved [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] This is most clearly reflected in [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] has made other edits to [redacted name] linking to [redacted gender] and [redacted action]: [redacted evidence] Making matters worse, [redacted name] went to [redacted name]'s biography to [redacted details] in the article: [redacted evidence] This was, mind you, before [redacted details]. Another where [redacted name] has breached COI and used [redacted gender] tools while involved is with regards to [redacted name]. [redacted name] is a close personal friend of [redacted name] and created the article on him: [redacted evidence] One [redacted details] noted that [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted action], presumably [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] added or restored [redacted details] being made by sock-puppets, possibly of [redacted name] and edit-warred with [redacted details] over the issue: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] was actually nominated for adminship by [redacted name] who appears to [redacted details], possibly meaning [redacted name] was another of [redacted name]'s socks: [redacted evidence] Some time later [redacted name] [redacted action] while stating [redacted gender] is not [redacted name] or affiliated with [redacted details], avoiding mention of [redacted gender] personal connection or [redacted gender] previous edit-warring to [redacted action] again being both involved editorially and having a personal conflict of interest: [redacted evidence] [redacted details] subject to admin conduct policies. Though I had been aware of [redacted name]'s identity and [redacted gender] actions regarding the [redacted name] article for [redacted time], the [redacted action] prompted me to contact [redacted gender]. I informed [redacted gender] that I knew of [redacted gender] identity and of [redacted gender] conflict of interest editing combined with abuse of admin tools, but said I would not report [redacted gender] to ArbCom so long as [redacted gender] engaged in no further COI editing or disclosed [redacted gender] conflict of interest. [redacted gender] never responded back to me, but for over a year [redacted gender] appeared to be heeding my request by not editing articles where [redacted gender] had a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, after 5 albert square extended HJ Mitchell's one-month block by three months in early October, [redacted name] resumed [redacted gender] COI editing. Initially, it was just a single edit to the [redacted name] article: [redacted evidence] Some of the edits were legitimate BLP issues, but [redacted gender] also restored unsourced promotional wording from [redacted gender] preferred version. I asked [redacted gender] via e-mail to restore the changes that did not violate BLP, but [redacted gender] failed to comply with my request. [redacted gender] even went further and made a series of edits about [redacted name] that same month. [redacted name] is one of [redacted gender] friends in [redacted group]: [redacted evidence] For the record, the second archive link above is of [redacted details]. That archive was from [redacted details], but [redacted gender] has since changed it on the sly to downplay the description of [redacted gender] relationship with [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] Earlier this month [redacted name] edited the article on [redacted name], another of [redacted gender] friends, to link to the article [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] had also created the article on [redacted name] after [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] continued editing [redacted name]'s page after they became friends [redacted evidence] [redacted name] has also [redacted details], who has been accused of [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] On [redacted time] [redacted name] made the following series of edits to [redacted name]'s article: [redacted evidence] In the above edits, [redacted name] refers to [redacted details] and states [redacted details]. An edit to the body of the article, third in the diffs above, shows [redacted name] mentioning [redacted details], which means [redacted details]. [redacted name] also notes in that same edit that [redacted name] has contested [redacted details]. Another edit mentions [redacted name] being [redacted details] despite being [redacted details] for [redacted details], but removes mention of [redacted details]. The cited source, which [redacted name] also removes, notes that [redacted details]. More information removed by [redacted name] in that edit states [redacted details] and that is also noted in the source. After [redacted name]'s changes, there is no mention that [redacted details]. These edits seem to go directly against BLPCRIME and from [redacted name]'s [redacted details] on the case, it appears [redacted gender] is pushing a personal vendetta regarding it. Whatever the truth of [redacted name]'s case, this kind of malicious editing is completely inappropriate for an admin. After seeing these edits, I sent [redacted name] another e-mail mentioning the edits [redacted gender] had made to the [redacted name] article, the article of [redacted name], and the article on [redacted name]. I told [redacted gender] if [redacted gender] didn't disclose [redacted gender] conflict of interest activities, that I would report [redacted gender] to the Committee the next week. That was a week ago today. Since then [redacted gender] editing seems to be geared towards [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted gender] changes to [redacted details] mentioning [redacted name] on [redacted gender] site seem to have happened after I e-mailed [redacted gender] about it, so I can only conclude that [redacted gender] had read my e-mails despite never responding to them directly and is now trying to conceal evidence for the extent of [redacted gender] misconduct. There is no indication that [redacted gender] is planning to disclose [redacted gender] COI and as [redacted gender] appears to have taken advantage of my long block to get away with more COI editing, reporting to ArbCom seems to be the only guarantee I have that [redacted gender] will not commit further violations of policy. While I think the above evidence should be enough to indicate that [redacted gender] [redacted name] I will provide some additional evidence to help you confirm it. The second article [redacted name] created was [redacted details] [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted details] and has [redacted details] about [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] went to [redacted details] and lived in [redacted details]. One of the first edits of [redacted name] was to the article on [redacted details] and [redacted gender] has made edits to [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted details] and [redacted name] was highly active on matters concerning articles about it: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted details] has been [redacted details]. [redacted name] has edited all of them, actually creating the article on [redacted details], mentioning [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] was [redacted details] and only edits [redacted name] ever made to said article were to [redacted details] and later source [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted details] and edited the article: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] [redacted details] with [redacted name] and [redacted name] significantly edited both articles: [redacted evidence] One of the most damning pieces of evidence is that [redacted name] created an article on [redacted name] and [redacted name] announces the article’s existence on [redacted details] the same day: [redacted evidence] Given [redacted name]'s propensity for using [redacted gender] admin tools on matters where [redacted gender] is not only involved, but has an outside conflict of interest, I feel there needs to be harsh action. The reactions [redacted gender] had in the past few months suggest nothing short of official action will dissuade [redacted gender] from continuing to violate policy and abusing [redacted gender] position as an admin.

The last e-mail I sent regarding the admin before my ban was to notify the admin that I submitted the above report:

Regrettably, since it seems you have no interest in heeding my request, I have done as promised and notified ArbCom of your activities. Given the evidence I have provided of your misconduct I imagine they will be taking very harsh action. Were you to publicly come clean about your conflict of interest editing and resign your admin tools under a cloud before they do anything, there may be a chance for you to avoid a more serious response from ArbCom. That said, you should prepare yourself for the possibility of greater public exposure. I have no intention of revealing anything I know and ArbCom presumably won't either, but any public action by the Committee is likely to prompt others to investigate. It will not be hard for people to realize who you are and why action was taken.

Here is the sole message I received from any Arbitrator in response to my e-mail:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your message, the contents of which have been circulated to the committee for consideration. If we believe further information from you would be helpful, we will be in touch. You *MUST* please ensure that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message; messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read. – [we all know her real name and she has freely disclosed it, but I'm redacting it anyway so no one can get all pedantic about it](GorillaWarfare)

For those wondering, here is the e-mail I sent pretty much immediately after the ban came down:

I demand a serious explanation immediately for the cause of this accusation that I am harassing editors. At no point was I informed of any discussion about banning me or any accusations of harassment. The only conclusion I am forced to reach is that this concerns my e-mail regarding [redacted name]. Warning an admin against abuse of [redacted gender] position and then informing to the proper authorities on Wikipedia about this abuse when it continues unabated is not harassment in any way, shape, or form. You are committing acts of libel against me if you are basing your decision on my communications with [redacted name] and the Committee. Please clarify exactly what informs your decision and why you felt I didn't need to be informed beforehand.

Just for full disclosure, here is another e-mail I sent to the admin after my ban through another Wikimedia site's e-mail function due to the fact I was interviewed by Allum Bokhari at Breitbart about the ban:

Just thought you should know that a reporter at Breitbart has spoken to me about my ban. As I have every reason to believe the ban was motivated by my report to the Committee about you, I described the details of that report to him, but I did not mention your real name or username. None of the details I have disclosed would be specific enough to identify you either on Wikipedia or in real life. Until ArbCom decided to ban me rather than acting on my report about you, I had no intention of discussing this with anyone else, but in order to clear my name from false harassment claims I have little choice but to reveal some of the details. This message is just to inform you of the likelihood that this situation will be mentioned in the press and assure you that I have not revealed you were the editor I reported or your real name. Were I to reveal that information I would make sure it was kept off-the-record and not revealed publicly, but unless that information is requested on condition of publication I will not even do that.

Here also is a subsequent e-mail I sent to ArbCom after the admin violated the COI policy again:

I recognize that ArbCom seems to have declined any public action against [redacted name] after the report I submitted in December, but apparently opted instead to ban me with a claim of "harassment" that has not yet been explained to me. That said, I can only presume that even if the Committee thought that I did something so horrendous it merited an unprecedentedly secretive ban, they would have at least understood the evidence I presented against [redacted name] was solid and at a bare minimum given [redacted gender] some kind of warning not to engage in further misconduct. Unfortunately, it would seem any warnings [redacted gender] may have been given were not enough as I see [redacted gender] has made this edit: [redacted evidence] This edit is being used to promote [redacted gender] friend [redacted name], who was mentioned in my earlier report, and also [redacted name]. In the case of the latter I only previously mentioned [redacted name]'s role in creating an article about [redacted name] and announcing it [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] Later on I found that this appeared to be yet another case of [redacted gender] writing about one of [redacted gender] friends: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] also has promoted [redacted name] on [redacted details] as part of some [redacted details]: [redacted name] While I don't understand quite why many of you on the Committee would think I needed to be banned for reporting [redacted gender] misconduct or trying to keep [redacted gender] from continuing that misconduct by warning I would report said misconduct, as I am left to presume is what occurred as you have provided me zero reason to believe otherwise and the timing was certainly indicative enough on its own, I would think that you have at least recognized [redacted gender] should cease such activity and suggested [redacted gender] stop. As such, this seems to be [redacted gender] way of testing if you will notice and is not all too dissimilar from what [redacted gender] started doing after I was blocked for three months by 5 albert square. There is no reason to believe any warning will suffice as I said when I first reported [redacted gender] misconduct to the Committee. Failure to act is likely to only result in further breaches as [redacted gender] seems intent on using Wikipedia as free advertising for [redacted gender] friends and colleagues or as an outlet for attacking [redacted gender] enemies. Since [redacted gender] has previously abused [redacted gender] admin privileges on issues where [redacted gender] has a COI, there is plenty of reason for ArbCom to do more than just give [redacted gender] some quiet warning and hope that will be enough because [redacted gender] is signaling that such actions will not stop [redacted gender] from repeatedly violating policy since [redacted gender] seems to just want to bide [redacted gender] time until [redacted gender] believes no one is watching.

So there you have it, as many of the sordid details that I feel can be disclosed without directly or indirectly identifying who it is I reported to the Committee. People can judge for themselves whether they think this was some sort of malicious harassment campaign or a sincere attempt at preventing someone from persistently violating site policies. At this point I think one can fairly say that claims I "threatened to out" anyone are mistakes, possibly even willful lies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to the Emails posted

Thank you for posting that. Again, well done on your ability to redact the personal details and still provide enough context to shed light on the situation. I expect the Arbcom or someone to oversight this to protect the Arbcom's abusive conduct in this case and Jimbo's biased incompetence but I made screenshots so it will still exist. They will make every effort to hide the truth to protect their abusive conduct and incompetence in your case I am sure. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC) What is funny are all the arguments that the report to ArbCom was fine, but not the warnings beforehand. It is an argument that screams "know your place peasant" since no one would bat an eye if these kinds of messages were sent by an admin or Arbitrator. Basically, I'm being faulted for not acting deferential to authority by snitching at the first opportunity, but instead trying to give the admin an opportunity to avoid sanctions. How horrible I must be to allow someone a chance to get off scot-free so long as that person stops breaking the rules.

That said, the insistence that my claims were "baseless" is a sign that even they feel it is harder to argue for a ban if I were correct. Hard to believe they can describe them as baseless given past precedent in ArbCom cases would have made the evidence I provided sufficient. Any time I am this certain about something any attempt at casting doubt on my claims usually causes me to just dig deeper and find even more evidence. Perhaps my next e-mail with evidence I just found will be enough to convince them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Well if history shows us anything it's that the Arbcom wouldn't have done anything to the admin anyway. I also hope everyone see's Drmies trolling comments and ad hominem personal attacks and that he hasn't yet made a reasonable comment about the situation nor has the Arbcom commented yet to tell you why you were banned. Personally, I don't think they want anyone to know because they know the reason is unjustifiable. Reguyla (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt y'all's tete-a-tete. TDA, I know about your complaint, I have looked into it, and there is nothing to it--nothing whatsoever. The admin did not have a COI, their edits were not INVOLVED--as a matter of fact, it seems that the subject strongly disagreed with the admin's edits that you think were so friendly to the subject. Finally, BLPCRIME is not applicable here. That's all, folks. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, if you have comments to make please make them and stop trolling. Your provocative comments aren't helpful. I also read through the comments above and although there are details missing I can see a pretty clear argument for COI. Even still, if it was decided it wasn't that's ok too. But there was no need to ban TDA for notifying the Arbcom of the potential for COI unless you are just looking for an excuse to get another editor off the project. Is that the case here? He emailed the arbcom in private and after notifying the user via email. What this shows everyone is if there is a problem with an admins conduct do not email it to the Arbcom. Formulate a case, in public, so everyone can see it and then let the chips fall where they may. The fact that the Arbcom has not told TDA what the harassment was or clarified why they were banned only shows me and everyone that the Arbcom really doesn't have any justification. Because giving a clear and concise reason for a ban would require the arbcom to say why it was done and that is not something they are capable of or want to do in this case. Reguyla (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I sincerely doubt you should take anything Drmies says with credibility. Even if one believed there was no COI the involvement issue is not even contingent on a COI, but only magnified as an issue by it. The WP:INVOLVED aspect is textbook and would be independently valid regardless of any outside conflict of interest. However, I see no reason to believe that the COI claim is invalid. Not many explanations exist that could make sense of the evidence without the subject and the admin being the same person. Said explanations are more outlandish and, ultimately, would have little difference in effect or may even be worse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I don't. I know he's just trolling. Reguyla (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) One thing I have noticed about Drmies is that he tends to be an enabler to his fellow admins. I could understand if his position on this case were simply that the evidence wasn't strong enough to indicate the admin was the person I identified, despite thinking he is wrong, but any claim that my argument involved an overly broad interpretation of COI or WP:INVOLVED is just ridiculous and he has to know it is ridiculous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC) You may diss Drmies, but at least he isn't lying on that page about completely unrelated events without any provocation whatsoever so as to DARVO one of his harassment victims. Not to say Drmies has harassment victims, merely that the other person does.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC) I completely agree he is an enabler, he isn't the only one. Really there aren't that many problematic admins on EnWP. The problem I have is that nothing is done about them and others like Drmies make foolish attempts to justify the bad behavior of them including retaliating against the victims to protect those admins. Sorry I'm confused on that last comment. Which page? Are you stating I am lying about some unrelated event? I'm not sure if that was directed at me or someone else. Reguyla (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC) I am talking about someone on the other Jiimbo talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. It's not uncommon for people on EnWP, including arbs and Jimbo himself to lie to get their way. Its part of the culture at this point because people like Jimbo and the WMF refuse to do anything about it, especially when it involves one of their special snowflake admins/functionaries/arbs. The admins of EnWP are delicate creatures and must be protected. Reguyla (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC) This person isn't really defending ArbCom and was actually criticizing them, but he is also someone with a long-standing grudge against me over something completely unrelated to all of this. He has no problem with me being banned, but not because he gives a lick about harassment or has any strict ideas about what it entails. He wants me to stay banned because he just wants me to hurt.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To Kyohyi on WikiInAction, the relevant part of the harassment policy you are citing was added by me. It was not intended in any way to refer to a person making allegations and then being proved wrong. So long as the person raising complaints has reasonable evidence of policy violations, especially if they are serious policy violations, then it isn't hounding. As someone who has been subjected to frivolous abuse of dispute resolution mechanisms and seen it directed towards others, I would not raise complaints about a user if I did not have strong reason to believe it was true and evidence to back it up. What I would also mention is this part of the policy concerning what qualifies as a threat: "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." Currently, given the evidence I had presented to ArbCom and evidence I uncovered during this discussion that has also been sent to ArbCom, I have little doubt that I am correct regardless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

TDA, it appears to me that you may also be banned on Wikipediocracy as well. If so, do you know why, and do you care to explain that? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth several of us on WPO have asked that he be unbanned there. So I suspect if he requests it, they will let him back in. Reguyla (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC) As I understand it an admin requested I be unbanned after my ban from Wikipedia, but the three out of five trustees who voted to ban me apparently remained solid in their opposition to my return since I'm still banned. Doubtful that an unban would proceed now and I don't particularly care at this point. Only reason I would even want to be back is to access the members-only section for informational purposes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC) So it's hard to assess this, I think because the crux of the issue seems to lie in the [redacted evidence]. The consensus of ArbCom seems to be that the charges you are leveling there are without merit, and because they are groundless, they constitute harassment. That's why they are thankful you are withholding that evidence, as revealing it would take what, so far has only been private harassment, and make it public harassment. I think the real-world US legal system deals with this via grand juries. "Grand juries perform both accusatory and investigatory functions. The investigatory functions of the grand jury include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence and hearing the sworn testimony of witnesses that appear before it. The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offence within the venue of the district court." In our wiki-world ArbCom performs this function because we haven't created a separate body to do that. Grand juries operate in private. Only after a grand jury brings a case does a public trial begin. My guess is that this COI issue you are exposing isn't one where there is a big financial interest involved. It is more COI related to POV editing by someone who doesn't stand to make a financial gain from their editing. This seems a more grey area, where there may be less agreement over where to draw the line between what's acceptable and what's not. Your WPO-ban isn't helping the optics of your case. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The crux of the issue is the English Wikipedia Arbcom finding any reason to fault the submitter and protect the admin. Had an editor been accused of half of this they would have been blocked. But because its an admin we are talking about, the EnWP arbcom will go far out of their way to ensure that admin is protected. Since TDA has been a critic of the Arbcom and case decisions in the past, this was a good opportunity for them to silence another critic. It also doesn't matter if there is financial gain, there is a clear COI involved and needs to be addressed. What's worse is that I have figured out who this is (through a lot of digging through edit summaries and other stuff) and I anticipate this admin will get identified in the fairly neat future and the result will be them getting desysopped at the least. That is, in turn, going to make the Arbcom look extremely stupid and petty. You put too much faith and trust in the Arbcom, some of us have more experience with their conduct. Reguyla (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC) I would note one thing I have consistently offered up to exclude any suspected individuals. The admin I reported is not a current or former member of ArbCom, nor was the admin involved in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia. Should the admin that you suspect of being the one I reported be either of those things then it is not the admin I reported. If the admin you suspect is neither of those things, then I will not confirm or deny anything.

As to Wbm's statement about my WO ban, it was a rather petty response from an admin because he didn't like me correcting him. It is sort of connected in a way as if I hadn't been banned from there, I would have just raised my issues with an admin nomination on WO rather than on my talk page, which an admin who had made an abusive and rapidly-reversed block against me in the past used as an excuse to add another three months to my block. Had it not been for that then the admin I reported might not have seized the opportunity to get away with more COI editing.

Further in response to Wbm, there is some potential financial gain for the admin involved in some of the edits I raised, though I didn't mention that in my e-mails. However, something I just saw yesterday would suggest this admin may have started out on Wikipedia by doing a little paid editing and I sent that to ArbCom as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Reguyla also claims that the person he suspects is a woman and edited sometime during the 28th:

Of course I [Reguyla] am not sure and really don't want to say the name at this point but the person was not Arbcom, is female, has edited today [April 28, 2016] and I have no idea if they are affiliated to GamerGate but it doesn't appear so.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't comment on anything else he is stating, but I would make it clear that the exclusionary criteria is just being involved in the GamerGate dispute on Wikipedia, whatever side one takes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see, I just looked at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and saw that you were actually the filing party on that. So, if the rationale for your ban is the violation of sanctions imposed on you by that case, and the [redacted] person you are discussing in your emails doesn't appear anywhere in the case page or pages related to it, then either you were banned for something other than this email, or, if you were banned because of the contents of the email, as Jimbo suggests, then the rationale for your ban would be a very broad construal of a sanction or sanctions. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) To be fair, other than the topic ban, the restrictions against me had a general effect. I had been the one to suggest the sanctions in lieu of a ban, so I understood that. However, I did have a certain expectation that reporting the misconduct of others privately would not be used against me. What is truly ridiculous about the GG case is that despite all the criticism about them being too harsh on the anti-GG side, they had more than enough private evidence from me of prior misconduct just over the previous year to justify a site-ban against another of the anti-GG parties, but decided this misconduct was "irrelevant" to the case despite citing every little action taken against me since 2009 in justifying a site-ban. Had I not offered those sanctions they would have done it.

As far as their cause, I am a little sketchy on it now. I don't see how they could possibly argue sincerely that there are no COI issues presuming the admin is the person I identified, but even before the more damning evidence I found during this discussion I feel there was more than enough to say my allegations were anything but "baseless" as some have characterized them. Should they really agree with me that the admin is the person I identified then I don't think they are being even remotely honest and I would say at least one of them is outright lying about the whole thing. One thing I can state for certain is they would be showing a glaring double standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

On the response to my appeal

It took two and a half months of repeated queries after I first sent it, but I finally got a response to my e-mailed appeal to Jimmy Wales. A bonus is that after four months I finally got a clear statement on the basis, evidence, and reasoning for my ban. Even if these statements are deceitful, self-serving, and hypocritical, that is more than I had to work with since my New Year's Eve ninja ban. While at this point it is obvious from any reading of the arbitration policy agreed to by the community that the Committee has violated policy and procedure and it is also obvious from any reading of his past comments that Wales has gone against his word (not for the first time) in supporting my ban despite such violations, this does nothing to change my current situation.

Not too long ago I took the time to watch The Shawshank Redemption and I found some delight in how Andy Dufresne managed to badger the state legislature into a massive expansion of the prison library. The way he acclimated to his situation and through sheer persistence won people to his side consistent with the greater good despite being imprisoned for a crime he did not commit was entertaining, but I am not like Dufresne. While I may be innocent and the warden may be corrupt and prone to abuse of power, I was not a crook before this happened and I will not allow this situation to make me a crook. I pledged to this admin that I would not reveal who it was I reported directly or indirectly. Doing so without violating any policy in spirit or letter would be easy enough, but as opposed to Wales and the Committee I believe people should be honest and keep their word.

In accordance with that and contrary to what has been suggested on the Wikipedia Sucks board, I have no intention of admitting fault or apologizing for my actions. Only if my beliefs about this admin's identity were disproven with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence would I ever consider an apology and that only insomuch that the truth comports with my core allegations as it is only right to apologize for an error, but that is not something I believe is very likely. Given the evidence I initially compiled, and especially the evidence I recently sent to the Committee, the odds of me being in error are minuscule. Despite the Committee and Wales assuming bad faith in my attempts to address serious misconduct while balancing the desire to minimize harm to the individual concerned, their projection notwithstanding, I know I have acted completely in compliance with the letter and spirit of the rules as well as with basic moral standards and my own personal principles.

Concepts such as honor and integrity might feel elusive to those who have contrived this excuse to be rid of me or who have zealously defended it through dishonest means, but it is why I hold my tongue despite there being every advantage for me in revealing the whole truth however so subtly. Being wronged is not a moral justification for becoming like those who have wronged me. From what I can discern Wales, those on the Committee who voted for my ban, and those members who have otherwise supported it, all have predispositions that would preclude them from considering the evidence fairly. In spite of that, I will extend to them the fairness they refuse to extend me and allow them time to consider the most recent evidence before I consider any further actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I had some difficulty in coming up with something to say. Do I commend you for sticking to your chosen course of action, or do I remark on the foolishness of forsaking expediency? Settling this matter could be as simple as releasing all the evidence and letting the community sort it out, yet you opt for a more drawn-out process. Nevertheless, I'm more of a romantic than a realist, so I find foolishness to be inspirational. I admire your sense of honor and integrity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Holding back is not as foolish as you might think. Certain advantages come with waiting and that includes gathering more evidence as I have now discovered even more proof that this admin is the person I identified. It may have been evidence I rediscovered as I have a vague recollection of seeing it previously. Perhaps I neglected to include it in my evidence file, but having found it now it will also be sent to the Committee. While I don't intend to give them some sort of significant time extension, I may allow them a smidgen more time to review the evidence.

Either way, no one could seriously argue for this admin being someone other than the person I identified without being steeped in denial. Drmies may have been engaging in yet another bit of trickery in seeking to imply that I was mistaken in my identification, when he meant something else by his words or he is just a poor communicator. That said, any argument other than claiming the admin is not the person I identified would make their rejection of my report highly suspect and I don't see how they could possibly argue the admin is anyone else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Can you post the clear statement on the basis, evidence, and reasoning for your ban, of course redacting any thing you don't feel is appropriate to reveal. It would be nice to get at least a vague sense of their rationale, and how broadly related it is to violating your GamerGate sanctions, and how it relates to this new matter of alleged misconduct by an administrator. Or just say as much as you can in your own words. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I am just referring to the public statements made by Wales and other arbitrators regarding my ban. There has still not been a direct statement to me laying everything out in detail. Up to this point I was only guessing that it was related to my e-mail, especially since they initially claimed I was harassing editors plural, so getting them to confirm the e-mail was the cause is still progress and their comments suggest it was the sole cause. Now I know the evidence they have if it really is just about my e-mails and I have a glimpse into their reasoning based on those public statements. Direct communications, though, are still being returned with radio silence, unless you count the petulant outburst by Drmies above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC) So where is this recent public response, I assume you mean you just got a response in the last couple of days. I'm lost trying to find it. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Here are the comments from Jimbo I was thinking about. A number of the claims may be false, even defamatory, but it still confirms the basis and I understand the gist of the faulty reasoning being employed. There are also these comments by Drmies, albeit dripping with abusive and self-serving sanctimony, that offer up some form of explanation. Just as Jimbo's comments they are littered with falsehoods, but I know the falsehoods already so it is no trouble to just see ArbCom's wrongheaded defense. It may be hard for people unfamiliar with all the facts to understand, but it is easy enough for me to follow.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up e-mails

Not long after I posted my original e-mails and subsequent e-mails regarding the admin I reported, some Committee members began throwing around a lot of confusing responses as did Wales that seemed to deny the admin was the person I identified or otherwise argued there were no issues with the admin's conduct. This prompted me to dig even deeper and I sent several e-mails to them through an arbitrator via the e-mail user function on Commons.

ArbCom has had a month to respond to my first e-mail and two weeks to respond to my last e-mail, but there has been zero movement on their part despite them taking less than two weeks to supposedly do an "investigation in detail" into my first report to conclude that there was "nothing to it" and I should be banned, so I am being quite fair to them in waiting this long. What follows are those e-mails showing the admin is almost certainly the person I identified and that there is undeniable legitimacy to my report. First e-mail was sent almost immediately after comments were made seemingly suggesting the admin was not the person I identified:

Since I have finally received some sort of response, I would like to address it. Apparently, the Committee members believe that I am wrong to claim [redacted name]. That is really the only way ArbCom can dismiss the evidence I presented. I obviously cannot know why you concluded that this is false, but I cannot envision any explanation that fits the evidence other than ones that would essentially be just as bad or worse. At the time some of my evidence might not have been as hard. For instance, when I stated [redacted details] was changed after my e-mail, I only inferred this based off my recollection that it was unchanged before I raised the matter in my e-mail: [redacted evidence] Later on I looked again and found this document showing the page had a "date modified" entry from about a day after my e-mail was sent out: [redacted evidence] You have to search for the url [redacted details] and it will show a date of [redacted time]. I sent my e-mail a little before [redacted time] A Google cache of the page was taken [redacted time], so this would all seem to support that an edited version [redacted details] was [redacted action] after my e-mail, an edit that only changed the statement about [redacted name] being [redacted gender] friend: [redacted evidence] The only person at the time who I had mentioned the [redacted name] edits to was [redacted name] in that e-mail. Only explanation is that either [redacted name] and acted on the e-mail or [redacted name] notified [redacted name], who then acted on that. Yet I do not see how the latter explanation makes any sense. If the Committee is correct that they are different people why change the [redacted details]? There would be no need to downgrade [redacted gender] friendship status with someone over my e-mail were [redacted gender] completely innocent and had no connection to [redacted name]. What would allow it to make sense is if [redacted name] and [redacted name] were closely connected in some way. This would match up with [redacted name] being aware of the [redacted name] article six hours after it was created. Such an explanation would not absolve [redacted name] at all. However, that is just clarifying and expanding on previous evidence I presented. What I just found is far more strongly supportive of [redacted name] being [redacted name]. This happened when I looked at the [redacted name] article and saw an account blanking the article [redacted details] after it was created: [redacted evidence] This account had blanked numerous articles edited or created by [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] At first I considered this might be a sock with a grudge, but upon further investigation it appears it was retaliation for several blankings performed by [redacted name] for [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] In every last case, [redacted name] self-reverted the blanking with the message [redacted details] Right before any of these changes, an IP also reverted the blanking on another article with the message [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] The [redacted details] aside, the edit summary is identical. Looking at the IP's contributions show edits to [redacted details] right around when [redacted name] began editing those pages: [redacted evidence] Another incident shows the IP linking to the [redacted details] article on another page right as [redacted name] is editing that page: [redacted evidence] The IP at one point seems to admit to being [redacted name] as a message left on several user talk pages claiming to have created a page about [redacted details], a page just created by [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] In other words, these appear to be accidental logged-out edits. While the IP was used [redacted time], a check shows it currently geolocates to [redacted details] which is roughly [redacted details] away from [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] mentions working at [redacted details] in [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] A press release from the group identifies [redacted name] as an employee going back to [redacted time], right in the middle of the time period where there were edits by the [redacted details] IP: [redacted evidence] While I don't know why the Committee thinks I am wrong, I struggle to understand how all these pieces of evidence could be mere coincidence. Even if the Committee is right about the identity of [redacted name], there is no reasoning I can come up with that doesn't involve [redacted gender] being closely affiliated with [redacted name] to the point that my COI complaint would remain valid.

Very soon after that I sent another e-mail noting the admin appeared to have started out doing paid editing:

Again, I don't know what the Committee thinks they know about [redacted name], but I am at a loss to see how [redacted gender] could be anyone but [redacted name]. I looked at some of [redacted gender] earliest edits. Leaving aside several edits linking to [redacted name]'s own [redacted details], including what appears to be the first ever edit [redacted name] made with [redacted gender] account: [redacted evidence] What struck me as odd were edits about [redacted details]. My previous e-mail mentioned that [redacted name] worked at a group called [redacted details] and I noted an IP address that by all evidence appears to belong to [redacted name] geolocates to right in the area of [redacted details], where the group is based and [redacted name] lives. I decided to check out the [redacted details] edits and it seems every single one was edited by [redacted name] to include links or references to [redacted group]: [redacted evidence] The links are dead now, but all links redirect to the group's current site and Internet Archive also confirms these urls went to the group's site. When I searched up the [redacted details] source I found a [redacted details] report. On page 25 of the report (page 26 of the PDF) [redacted name] is described as being the [redacted details] for the [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] I don't think I need to tell the Committee that the [redacted details] is exactly the kind of person who would make the kinds of edits that were made to these articles and I can think of no reason why anyone would specifically link to that group in such a spammy manner, unless they were making those edits on behalf of said group or otherwise worked at the group. This looks like classic paid editing. No idea why the Committee claims my allegations are baseless or without merit, but this and all the other things I have mentioned in my e-mails all point to the exact same conclusion that [redacted name]. Anyone else this obsessed with [redacted gender] and all [redacted gender] interests that they would spend [redacted time] editing Wikipedia about anything related to [redacted gender] would have to be someone very close to [redacted gender] or some kind of extreme creepy stalker-type, yet oddly one who would [redacted details] and appears to be in close communication with [redacted gender] as [redacted name] makes edits to [redacted gender] site concealing details I raised in a private e-mail or announcing articles that were created mere hours earlier. In not a single scenario that makes any sort of logical sense would [redacted name] be an innocent victim. However, the explanation that best fits the evidence and explains away any oddities of this case is the one I gave in my very first e-mail to the Committee and it is also the simplest explanation: [redacted name].

After about a week I dug up even more evidence and sent them the following e-mail:

I do not know if my previous evidence convinced the Committee that [redacted name] or if that was ever really in doubt, even if I don't see how the Committee could believe they are the same person yet claim there was nothing untoward taking place, however there is some additional that would seem to make this definitive. [redacted name], in [redacted details], writes about [redacted details] and states that [redacted gender] is a Wikipedia administrator: [redacted evidence] This may have been something I saw before, but forgot to save for some reason, as the article looks familiar to me. [redacted name] also appears to have been active in [redacted details] as [redacted gender] had [redacted details] as [redacted gender] and participated in their [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] Evidence indicating [redacted name] and [redacted name] are the same person can be found by comparing the interests of [redacted name] and those of [redacted name]. Both shared the same interest in [redacted details] and [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] On Wikipedia [redacted name] even [redacted action] regarding an article being written about [redacted details] by [redacted details] over a week before it was published: [redacted evidence] I think the above again makes it clear [redacted name] as I have said from the beginning. One additional point of concern I have regarding this evidence I found is that [redacted name] appears to have [redacted details] with [redacted name] on [redacted details] under [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] was at one point a member of [redacted group] on [redacted details]. [redacted name] was claimed in [redacted details] to be part of [redacted group]. It is possible they are mistaking [redacted gender] for another [redacted name] listed as part of [redacted group], but I don't know. What concerns me is that [redacted group] was [redacted details] and [redacted name] [redacted details] so if [redacted name] and [redacted name] have any shared past with [redacted group] as personnel or if they had developed some close personal connection due to participating in [redacted details] then [redacted name]'s involvement in my ban may be seen as improper. Just one last bit of evidence proving [redacted name]. [redacted name] wrote [redacted details] on [redacted gender] experience visiting [redacted details] during [redacted gender] time in [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] in [redacted gender] first year of editing created articles related to [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] I don't think anyone could argue based off all this evidence, the prior IP evidence, the off-wiki correlations, and odd edits on Wikipedia that anyone but [redacted name] could be [redacted name]. Were I truly so obsessive into "opposition research" for unsavory reasons I would not be just digging all this up years after learning about [redacted gender] identity. Most of what I found previously was incredibly basic stuff that required little effort and I only cared to dig into these things now because the Committee has cast doubt on the integrity of the case I presented, long after taking the decision to ban me without notice, without telling me what it concerned, or giving me an opportunity at defending myself. Should your failure to act on my report be based off doubts about the admin's identity then there is no reason to avoid acting now.

Now is the last e-mail I sent the Committee regarding this admin two weeks ago:

In my initial report to the Committee I mentioned the most recent editing [redacted name] did to the biography of [redacted name] and how [redacted name] selectively edited [redacted details] regarding criminal claims against [redacted details]. One of the Committee members has essentially dismissed the BLP issues claiming it wasn't a BLPCRIME violation, seemingly [redacted details]. At any rate, I did not look too far into the history of the article, which shows this was a long-standing issue. Back in [redacted time] [redacted name] had been [redacted action] to stop an editor from removing extensive material included about the criminal allegations that [redacted name] was edit-warring to include: [redacted evidence] [redacted name], the same member of the Committee I mentioned in my last e-mail who has had [redacted details] with [redacted name] at [redacted details], expressly raised issues with the article's inclusion of the criminal allegations at that discussion alongside [redacted details]. Said concerns were raised by [redacted name] again in a later discussion [redacted details] over the BLP issues: [redacted evidence] Within 24 hours [redacted details] despite every discussion showing significant support for minimizing if not excluding the details about the criminal allegations, [redacted name] expands further on the allegations: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] at one point [redacted details] argued that Wikipedia played a crucial role in letting people find out about [redacted name]'s past, referring to the allegations: [redacted evidence] One change [redacted name] made to the article mentioned [redacted name] defending [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] frequently raised issues with [redacted name] [redacted details] and his support for [redacted name]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] has been a long-standing [redacted details] in [redacted details]. This includes [redacted details] started by someone previously criticized by [redacted name] for [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] [redacted name] has been actively involved in [redacted details] some have criticized as [redacted details]: [redacted evidence] This may indicate [redacted gender] motive is, in part, to tarnish by association [redacted details] using [redacted name]'s BLP. Whatever the case, it is abundantly clear that [redacted name] has a serious axe to grind regarding this case and has repeatedly ignored reasonable BLP concerns about it with COI issues involved as well. The fact the arbitrator who has [redacted details] with [redacted name] on [redacted details] and [redacted details] appears to have also been concerned about the editing of the BLP, just creates an even greater appearance of impropriety on the part of the Committee on top of the various procedural irregularities with my case.

Given various details related to this case, I strongly doubt the sincerity and objectivity of any arbitrators claiming my report was without merit as this would appear to be them showing a glaring double standard. My position has only hardened due to my digging into this case. At this point I don't think there is any reason to doubt the admin is the person I identified or that the Committee has every reason to believe my report has merit. That they insist on doing nothing in response to my report other than banning me remains an absurdity speaking more to issues with ArbCom than anything else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to keep the community informed, although I'm not in a position to bring this new information to the attention of the wider enwiki community due to my own ban. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Probably, the only reason all this stuff about me made it to the English Wikipedia last time is because it wound up on WikiInAction. I see it has been discussed a little on WS and I presume it is or will end up on the WO members-only thread, but those are both limited in their effectiveness. Should this not spread in a similar way as the above did in a reasonable amount of time then I will just proceed to my next step.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I just read through all this TDA. I wasn't aware until now that this was a COI thing. You are now the second editor I am aware of to go down in flames pursuing a COI matter in ways that Arbcom found inappropriate, the other one being of course Will beback. There is a bunch of things I would like to understand, but the first is, what is this "COI policy" that you have cited a bunch of times? Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am only slightly familiar with that case, but from what I do know there are some significant differences. Will raised his concerns in public many times and seemed frustrated at not being able to identify the real name of the editor. Said editor had also disclosed having a conflict of interest. Having not looked too deeply into the legitimacy of the allegations about inappropriate COI activity in that case, I can only say that Will was much more zealous in his pursuit of the matter. Pursuing it in public when it involves personal information also carries the real risk of revealing such information, not that being less zealous and public about it made much difference for me.

That is one way in which his case provides perspective regarding my own case. Sending a total of three e-mails over the course of a year to try and politely get someone to stop undisclosed COI editing so as to avoid public exposure before giving up and contacting ArbCom due to continued violations is apparently so horrendous that I needed to be banned without even knowing it was being discussed let alone being allowed a chance to defend myself. Meanwhile, an admin publicly pursues a matter over two years spanning numerous discussions to stop disclosed COI editing risking exposure of personal information and initially succeeds in getting one editor banned, but even when it is overturned and he is banned instead said admin is allowed a full case to plead his side of the story. I imagine someone would point out circumstances that warrant some of the difference in treatment, but it does still raise numerous questions about ArbCom's double standards.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for replying. The overlap is here - apparently Will had gathered a bunch of offwiki ... stuff that he had sent to Jimbo and Arbcom via email, and apparently it was on that basis that Jimbo first banned TimidGuy. As I understand it when Arbcom reviewed everything they found a bunch of that didn't hold up (see 5.5 of the TimidGuy appeal). The review of that evidence and the reasons why that determination was made is not part of that case. But it was maybe the biggest part. That is where the overlap with what happened to you is ... perfect. I have thought about this a lot. If you are convinced that someone has a COI and they haven't disclosed that on-wiki, you are never, ever going to get action taken based on that, especially not for a longtime user (admin or otherwise) who has some record of good contributions. (I have seen new-ish editors who were obviously paid and doing nothing but promotional editing banninated based on a strong presumption of COI but never an established editor). In my view, the only way to bring someone down like that, is a long term POV-pushing case. You have to bring a shitload of diffs and show a clear pattern of bias. That (along with the SOCKING) is what finally brought Wifione down. See that arbcom case. I write about this on my userpage, if you care to read it. It is kind of long and tldr, but it is a nuanced thing. That is my take on what happened with you, TDA. The privacy thing is unbelievablly important to the community and efforts to piece together off-wiki stuff that are not disclosed on-wiki and to make hay over that, especially over a long period of time like both you and Will beback did, is met with the banhammer per the harassment policy, which is what you were banned under. There is a deep, abiding, and sharp lack of tolerance for that in WP. What do you think about that? Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Just to add here. I ~think~ that if when you become eligble, you made an appeal to be unbanned on the basis of an understanding of what I wrote above, and promising on your mother's grave never to do anything that again, you would be unbanned. Jytdog (talk) Should I take this to mean you only ever came here so as to convince me that I should grovel to that gaggle of hypocrites and sniff their thrones? Not a chance. Any appeal I send their way will look something like this and not be some sniveling plea for them or this admin to accept an apology neither of them are owed. I sure as shit will not suggest that somehow it is wrong to dig into an allegation of wrongdoing to see if there is evidence for it, give the offending person multiple chances at avoiding consequences in exchange for ceasing egregiously bad behavior, and when that fails telling the people in charge of enforcing the rules that someone has been seriously breaking them.

One must have a really tortured morality to suggest three e-mails effectively saying "Seriously, stop doing bad things or I will report you!" is horrific harassment that necessitates draconian measures, manipulative trickery, and malicious smears to stop. For all that blather on Wikipedia about "assume good faith" I find people rarely ever assume good faith of me, despite acting in good faith really being the only way I know how to act. Yet many of those same people persistently act in bad faith even as they demand everyone "follow the rules" and assume the opposite no matter how self-evident the truth.

You need to look at their comments. Wales pretty much acknowledged that what they are making an issue of is not the report itself or the digging, but the e-mails to the admin beforehand. Only way to truly interpret that is as them decrying my lack of fealty as I impudently dared to go outside their authority rather than submitting a wrongdoer to be judged by our benevolent lords. I did not put the power in their hands where it rightly belongs and