I'm not a regular at the English Wikipedia so I don't have any background about what did happen to you. I spend a fair amount of my spare time editing wikis but fuck off the wiki, it's just a virtual world. All this happened to your virtual identity not to you!
Vito 2016-05-17 14:44 GMT+02:00 Chris Sherlock <chris.sherloc...@gmail.com>: > > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal > thoughts. > > I don't know what to do now. > > Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen. I've been called > obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've > been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me > without reading the policy. > > An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which > violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes > were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me > was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When > I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any > way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing > was checking a company directorship, I was ignored. > > I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation > needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard. > > But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so > busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the > other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed. > Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody > knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised > it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not > even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I > spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job. > But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed. > > That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] > article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard > work was appreciated. > > I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I > was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly > and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter > article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here: > > > http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html > > Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a > decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction. > > I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that > was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it > was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too > negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time. > > I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack > article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was > about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody > had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it > had been deleted. > > So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very > carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly > noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a > short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the > history. > > Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at > Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how? > The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking > of his exploits! > > So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous, > like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been > in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was > notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his > entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP > investigation! That *is* notable! > > But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to > another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I > thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article.., > desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read > it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to > object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it. > In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have > it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing > the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough > context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is > deleted midway through editing it? > > The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then > they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that > the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't > be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it > to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as > bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City > of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going > to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to > strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up > for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant. > So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion. > At least then we'll get consensus one way or another. > > So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I > decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I > tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because > that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a > message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove > huge swathes of information. > > Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish > context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and > the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the > Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary > read BLP violation. > > Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk > page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said, > I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer! > And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's > about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my > memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on > articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very > public figure and this was reported widely. > > And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited > as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the > exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests > For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to > hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some > sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise > it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like > this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this > editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been > a case. > > So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn > Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up, > took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed > it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial". > In fact, he was just getting started.., > > "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which > are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration > records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not > belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist > has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories > about him for a reason." > > I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary > source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie > newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies > associated with Mehajer. > > And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was > messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had > relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this > egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have > let it go. > > So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me > what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was > reverted. > > I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask > them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I > asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would > answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted > with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting > because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly > non-controversial, was removed. > > Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They > said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut > down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what > the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a > lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I > pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a > violation of Biographies of Living People! > > There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again > because no answer had been provided. > > Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the > material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned. > But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references! > Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes > material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it. > > But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed > out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was > told. > > In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to > the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet > another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring. > > I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more, > to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at > the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped > and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful. > > Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I > posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been > and what I had contributed and what I had just been through. > > This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned > my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible > anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried > to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address > which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief. > > But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked. > > My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess > my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia, > Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A > project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with > others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the > library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could > locate about a subject. > > I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I > left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave > me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages. > > There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion. > > And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total. > There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my > ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have > failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly. > > I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't > know where. I pray my family forgives me. > > Chris > Ta bu shi da yu > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
