Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 24 November 2007

Durova

To avoid further speculation, people should know that I have been discussing the situation offline with Durova, in an attempt to understand what could possibly justify my being blocked indefinitely and without warning for "Abusing sock puppet accounts". I understand from public postings that roughly five "sleuths" discussed the "evidence" in depth and all approved a block. Well, a cursory review of my edits should reveal precisely how "abusive" I have been. I hope this is not indicative of how the so-called "banhammer" is being wielded by our "clueful" admins.

I am treating my discussions with Durova as confidential, and have every expectation that she will do the same. -- !! ?? 20:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I am rather disappointed with Durova's attempts to explain her actions to me. I will not divulge the contents of our communications (as I say above, I am treating them as confidential) but after some initial success in making contact and some helpful discussion, and I have now waited for over 3 days for a reply to some questions that I asked - a reply that I was told several times would be coming.

Nevertheless, most of my questions have been answered elsewhere, thanks to the efforts of Giano II, to whom I am very grateful.

• It seems clear that I was blocked on the back of a presentation of so-called "evidence" that was somewhere between a fantasy and a tissue of lies, based on a horrendously bad faith interpretation of entirely innocent activities. In short, it demonstrated judgement so woeful that, in my opinion, the author is not fit to be an admin. The falsity of the allegation that I am any kind of "abusive" sock puppet is amply demonstrated by my hundreds of substantial and positive contributions which can stand for themselves.

The "evidence" has been posted several times, and deleted and oversighted, but, in essence:

1. !! - a "troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters" - was clearly not a first account for a new and inexperienced editor. Highly suspicious, no doubt. I wonder how many of our admins have edited - or indeed are currently editing - under a second or subsequent account.
2. Even worse, !! was too helpful to fellow editors - some kind Philistine pretending to be a Samaritan - and too hard working on mundane wikignomic tasks.
3. And !! indulged in "obscene trolling" (in German!) - this, of course, relates to a new article created by Raul654 on a composition by Mozart.
4. !! started "free range sarcasm and troublemaking" - that is, like many others, being unhappy with Jimbo Wales's deus ex machina desysop of Zscout370 - rather than (as problem accounts are apparently usually wont to do) getting into trouble with the WP:3RR.
5. To cap it all, !! was gloating about not being a new account. - this in relation to a discussion on the Signpost talk page about interviews.

• It also seems clear that this odious note was circulated to a list of very respected Wikipedians, who it seems did nothing to contradict it - indeed, Durova has claimed, several may actually have supported it "positive to enthusiastically"). Many stood idly by when the block was made, although even more protested it within a matter of a few minutes.

It seems that there is some doubt in certain quarters as to whether editors who work diligently on writing and editing new content, like Leonard Miall or Myles Rudge or Rudy Narayan‎, or Prince's Palace of Monaco or Buckingham Palace or Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery or Simon Byrne, are here to contribute to the encyclopedia. "not to help build an encyclopedia"? Shame on you, sir.

I see a Request for Comment has been opened. Somehow, I doubt that it going to be the end of the story. -- !! ?? 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My remark, linked above, was not aimed at Giano. It was a direct response to someone who was claiming that deletion of the private email that Giano posted was an attempt to suppress discussion. Many people in this mess have been responsible for escalating the drama around what was clearly a bad block, quickly reversed. Will there be hard feelings between !! and Durova for awhile? Sure, I suppose so. But I see no reason for those hard feelings to remain, and I certainly see good reason for other people to try to sooth frayed nerves and find the best in people, rather than engaging in that sort of bizarre speculation and drama mongering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever about the rest of this sorry story, I was shocked and surprised to see that the "obscene trolling" in German related to Leck mich im Arsch, an article I was involved with myself. In fact, it's one of Mozart's more infamous works. No way could that have been construed as trolling, not even with your - ahem - tongue in cheek comments that accompanied it - Alison 02:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that we'll see you return to active contributing soon, because, as many people have noted, your contributions are extremely valuable—so much more so than the contributions of a typical "troll-fighter" that a comparison borders on comedy. Everyking (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

!!, I hope to see you continuing to contribute productively to Misplaced Pages, long after these and other misguided, "sleuthing" admins have been discovered and discredited. Cla68 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As a note, !!, an arbitration case has been opened regarding to this and related issues. You may want to add a statement. Dmcdevit·t 11:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

!!, why did User:JzG delete your talk page? Was that something you requested? Videmus Omnia 07:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)