User talk:Elen of the Roads/archive 1

en:User:Proofreader77

Hi Elen,

Sorry to contact you here, but I am blocked on wikipedia, and emails I sent to arbcom or even to you personally were left unanswered. Besides I'd rather post at least first part of this appeal in a public view.

Yes, it is an appeal for this user. To the best of my recollection I've never communicated with this user on wiki, and he has never asked me to do anything for him, but I learned this user's story, checked the differences, that made him blocked, and I believe a great unfairness was committed towards this user including but not limited blocking him and removing his talk page access by administrators that were involved in the same arbitration case with him during this case.

I will start this appeal here, but because of the privacy concern of other user involved, I'd rather continue it via email, or if you believe it is OK, I could post everything here.

• The user was first blocked (I have to start with this block because the user was mostly sanctioned by the same two admins Gwen Gale and Future Perfect at Sunrise) at 23:03, 29 December 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing). Before the block the user was warned by two other admins. Here's the warning: "This is your final warning. Your comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales, and elsewhere, about the conduct of David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket are, by your own admission, intended to be disruptive. If you continue to make them, you will be blocked from editing. Prodego talk 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)". Please note the warning is very specific and is abut the user's conduct on "David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket". The block was issued at the same day with the rationale "Owing to this edit, after you had been straightforwardly warned, I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)". And what is "this edit" Gwen is talking about? Here's this edit. The user talks about donating $1000 dollars to wikipedia (he did donate the money). Elen, there's nothing in this edit neither about David Tombe nor about Hell in a Bucket. How somebody could be blocked for this strange, but absolutely innocent post? When the user appealed the block, it was declined by the same admin who warned him, Prodego, that IMO was not the right thing to do.

BTW the block was posted only a week after Gwen Gale was asked to stop exercising administrative actions on this user: "Gwen,you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators."

OK, I am done with the first block. Would you like me to email you the rest, or you'd like me to go on here.

Elen, maybe this user was not a great asset to wikipedia, but he is a human being, and as I said he was treated unfairly. I know wikipedia is not a fair place, but I personally believe that if I would be able to help even one user, my time on this project would not be lost. I doubt that even, if unblocked he'd come back, but at least the ugly templates should be taken off his user pages.

Thanks for your time and for considering my appeal for the user.--Mbz1 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Proofreader77 I think. Did he not also have a habit of writing humorous poetry? I have to ask though - is Proofreader77 still about. Would he like to be unblocked? If so, I can certainly look at it - I don't recall him being horridly disruptive or having some nasty backstory. But if he's decided to leave altogether, would there be a point? Elen of the Roads 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen, thank you so much for the responding. I am not sure if this user likes to be unblocked, but I am sure the block still bothers him. I could tell you how I know about this here, but I'd rather email to you with my other evidences, if you'd agree.You are right this user likes to write sonnets.

You're asking what is the point of unblocking him, if he does not want to be unblocked. As I said I am not sure about this, but there are a few points to unblock the user:

1. Make it fair at last. It really does not matter, if the user wants to go on with editing or he does not. The user was blocked unfairly, and the block should be lifted. It is for the user to decide what to do after the block is lifted.
2. Remove the blocked user templates from his user and talk pages.Please see how his user page used to look. This user was awarded with a few barnstars, but now everything that is left from him is this
3. Show to the abusive administrators that their blocks could be overturned, that next time they would give it another thought before blocking for something like Proofreader77 was blocked for by Gwen Gale.
4. My last reason is rather selfish, but here it is:I'd feel so much better about my own contributions to the project, if thanks to my efforts one innocent user could get unblocked.

So, may I please email you or you'd rather see it here? I could post it here without naming one involved user.

If there will be no response by tomorrow night, I guess I'll go ahead and post other evidences here.

Regards.--Mbz1 20:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me make something clear. I'm not going to do anything so you can spit in Gwen Gale's eye. And I'm not significantly interested in your evidence of why the block was wrong, because I'm not contemplating "overturning" the block. If Proofreader77 contacts me, I will most likely unblock him, because I don't think he got into enough trouble to warrant keeping him blocked if he wants to return to editing. Even if he never actually bothers to edit, he'd still be unblocked. Elen of the Roads 11:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"spit in Gwen Gale's eye"? How about assuming good faith? I first became interested in Proofreader77 story because it is funny - somebody got blocked for donating $1000 to wikipedia. Then I looked at the differences. Even, if he were not blocked by Gwen Gale, I would have still came here to appeal for him with the same words because I, who uploaded hundreds of feature images, I, who wrote almost 100 DYK, suddenly realized that the only thing that I still would like to do for Wikipedia is helping editors who were mishandled by administrators, abusive, power hungry administrators about whom HJ Mitchell said:"that you reach for the block button without any consideration of "is this the right thing to do" or "is there another way I can handle this"..."You lack the judgement, and the thickness of skin, to do the job properly; you lack the compassion, humanity and humility to admit it when you fuck up", and yes, Elen, Gwen Gale is one of these administrators it was written about.

People who vandalize articles are rightly getting blocked. Administrators who vandalize contributors over and over and over again almost never get even warned. Editors who revert vandalism in the articles are awarded with barnstars. A few brave administrators who revert unfair blocks (revert vandalizing of contributors) are accused of wheel warring.

Elen, you are a member of ArbCom, which is a place for dispute resolutions, and you are saying to me that you are "not significantly interested in my evidence of why the block was wrong, because you are not contemplating "overturning" the block."? Really? Proofreader77 should be unblocked, and not because you do not think "he got into enough trouble to warrant keeping him blocked" but because at least 4 of his blocks (including two indefinite and removing his talk page access) were made absolutely unfairly, and this should be made clear. Administrators should learn on their mistakes. They are like doctors - a mistake could lead to loosing a contributor.Wikipedia is loosing contributors because of unfair blocks even, when they are promptly overturned. Remember en:User:!!?

Thanks to your response my opinion about GovCom's ability's fairly handle dispute resolutions just hit a new low.

Although there's no restrictions on filing appeals on behalf of a third party stated in any policy,I will email Proofreader77 and link him here, but no matter what you, Elen, as a member of GovCom should unblock the editor, who was mishandled, and not for me to be able to "spit in Gwen Gale's eye", and not because Proofreader77 did not make enough troubles to keep him blocked, but only because the user was blocked wrongly, and unblocking Proofreader77 is the right thing to do. --Mbz1 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I emailed the editor, and it does not look like he is interested in perusing the matter, which does not mean he should be kept blocked, with his user pages stamped. And now with your permission I will present the evidences why Proofreader77 should be unblocked, if for nothing else at least for the record, but I still hope you will reconsider your decision and unblock the editor.

Evidences presented by Mbz1

1. 22:16, 14 February 2010 Indefinite block issued by Gwen Gale for requesting a block template after the editor was unfairly blocked for 48 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise. This indefinite block was reverted by Tanthalas39 a few hours later.
2. 07:21, 17 February 2010 Indefinite block by Future Perfect at Sunrise during an arbitration case, in which both were involved The block was issued for submitting evidences for arbitration case in a form of sonnet.
3. 00:56, 21 February 2010 This is the last edit of Proofreader77. The blocked editor used his talk page to respond questions for his and Gwen Gale arbitration case. Six minutes after this edit, the edit in which the user responded to questions for the arbitration case, Gwen Gale, who was involved as a main party in the same arbitration case removed Proofreader77 talk page access, and templated his talk page.
4. On February 14, 2011 administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote this: "Proofreader, what we'll do with you is quite simple. You will simply shut up. One more word about this affair from you, and you'll be blocked for trolling.20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)". BTW the "affair" Future Perfect at Sunrise is talking about was an absolutely valid AN report that Proofreader77 filed. (I don't link to it in purpose because feature events with the user this report was about clearly demonstrated that Proofreader was right to be concerned). Elen, you know what I am talking about don't you? --Mbz1 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A side note

Elen, I just happened to read an arbitration case involving one admin, the case you, Elen, submitted the evidences for. These evidences eventually lead to desysoping of this admin. I do not provide the link in purpose, but you know who I am talking about. This admin should have been blocked after he misused his tools the first time. He should have been desysoped after he misused his tools for the second time. Elen, as I explained above it is bad, when an article is getting vandalized, but usually it could be repair easily. It is very seldom when, somebody gets hurt because of vandalized article, and it is very often, when contributors get hurt because they were mishandled. I've seen many cases, when prolific,valued contributors, and even administrators, left the project after a single unfair block or even unfair harsh words by ArbCom, and I am sure you did too. Elen, contributors are the biggest asset wikipedia has. If Proofreader77 is unblocked, it could help another editors, who find themselves in a similar situation to believe that Wikipedia cares about them, and wants them to stay. It could also be useful for administrators. Elen, I am not asking to sanction anybody, I am not asking to warn anybody, I am simply asking for a miracle to happen - unblocking an editor who was blocked in violation of wikipedia policies. Thanks.--Mbz1 03:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My position here

I don't think you're understanding my position here. I think the block was appropriate, although blocking his talkpage was probably a bit much - I usually reserve that for people who are abusive or abusing the unblock template. However, I am of the opinion that sufficient time has passed, and there's no reason why if he asks, Proofreader77 can't return and edit again, see if things go better this time around. --Elen of the Roads 15:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I did not expect you respond at all, and I do appreciate you're still talking to me.

Elen, the user was blocked by an involved administrator in a middle of arbitration case. Could you please take a look here:

"Gwen, you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)". I mean, if I were an admin, and another admin told me I was involved with the user, I would have never used the administrative tools to this user ever again even, if I believed I was not involved with him at all. Gwen blocking this user 3 times after that message at her talk, the third time during the arbitration case she was a main party, rises eyebrows. The same applies to Fut.Perf. After all the user was not attacking anybody, was not vandalizing anything, he just wrote a sonnet, and I personally was laughing at some parts of it... Well, everybody is different...

OK, Elen, you believe the block was justified, I believe it was not, at least there was no reason for involved admins to block this editor. IMO the only situation, in which a block by an involved admin could be justified, could be some kind of emergency situation. Contributions of Proofreader77 never created any emergency situations. In general I believe that all blocks by involved admins ought to be overturned. Of course there are some situations, in which an involved admin makes a just block, but I believe such blocks still should be overturned to enforce wikipedia policy about involved admins. It is an important policy, Elen, because an involved admin blocking an editor is the same as a teen harassing a toddler. Besides everything else a blocked editor will feel better about his block and its validity, if it is issued by an uninvolved administrator. Also on a general note IMO it is much easier to ban even a valued contributor than to desysop a bad administrator. Once again I'd like to remind you about the arbitration case you submitted the evinces for. The subject of this case misused their tools many, many times (including, but not limited blocking users they were involved with), but it is my understanding that a trigger that prompted this arbitration case was something other than their misusing the tools. Is this the way it should be?

You said you'd unblock Proofreader77, if he asks. It looks like he does not care, and honestly I cannot blame him for this. Elen, could you imagine how somebody who donated $1000 to wikipedia foundation should feel to be treated like this by involved administrators? See he's listed in Sustaining Donors on this page. Elen, when last year he appealed the block to arbcom he was accused of trying to bribe his way out of the block. To bribe? He donated the money before the block. He was first blocked because he explained at Jimbo's talk how this donation was going on. How could we expect somebody who appealed an unfair block, and was unfairly accused in trying to bribe his way out of the block to feel? Yes, he does not care to asking for an unblock anymore, but, Elen, I care, and I ask you to unblock the editor please, or at the very least, may I please ask you to consider bringing his user and talk pages to the way they were before they were templated, and reinstate his talk page access? After all Gwen Gale herself said: "I don't think blocked user should have to carry that badge in their talk space if they don't want to, a block note comes up when one looks at a blocked user's contribs either way" (and no, I am not watching Gwen's contributions, I just happened to read this AN thread that I personally was interested in). Elen, you yourself said that removing talk page access was "a bit much", and, if you add to this that it was removed by a heavily involved administrator during the arbitration case, it is not "a bit much" , but very much too much. Unwarranted removing of talk page access is one of the worst harassment a blocked editor could be a subject of. Only one who experienced this kind of harassment himself could judge how it feels. I know how it feels, but when Gwen Gale removed my talk page access, Rd232 was fair, kind and unafraid enough to reinstate it. It is about time to do it for Proofreader77. If an editor is harassing another editor, this editor is getting blocked. If an administrator harassing an already blocked editor, he never gets even warned. Elen, if you cannot do this for the user, may I please ask you to remove from my own user page and talk page everything but indefinite block templates and remove my talk page access? It is not any kind of demonstration and not any kind of making points. Although I was blocked by my own request, but you know it is not such simple situation as just taking an enforced wikibreak. I'm trying to think about my own block as about continuation of my December indefinite block, as I have never agreed on humiliating and unwarranted unblock conditions, as I have never went against my ethic, as I have never betrayed myself. That's why it will be easier on me, if I am treated the same way Proofreader77 is and the same way as all indefinitely blocked users no matter, if their blocks are valid (most cases) or invalid (not a lot, but still one too many) Thanks.--Mbz1 18:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. Elen, remember how in March of 2011 you blocked Adam Cuerden? I was very touched by this block because it was a thoughtful block. When you realized that the user went to bed, you unblocked without him asking for the unblock. Then I wished all admins were as thoughtful and understanding as you are. Are you still the same, Elen?--Mbz1 04:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

An aside and a sonnet for Mbz1 by (email-notified) Proofreader77 (who makes no request at this time)

“ (sotto voce) Repeat after me: "Proof of innocence is without consequence. Agree and be free."

Alternately: Fuck that shit. :-)

”

SONNET: WHEN BULLIED TO HUMILIATE YOURSELF
{MBZ.001.01} ____ WHEN BULLIED TO HUMILIATE YOURSELF {MBZ.001.02} ____ the suffering is gnawing to your soul. {MBZ.001.03} ____ Your ego slips down to the lowest shelf. {MBZ.001.04} ____ THE BULLY SMILES: They've scored another goal. {MBZ.001.05} ____ THE BULLY'S PLEASURE — pushing folks around — {MBZ.001.06} ____ is amplified when they can make you push {MBZ.001.07} ____ yourself into a hole — then strip the sound {MBZ.001.08} ____ out of your voice. The power of the "Shush!" {MBZ.001.09} ____ "You will be silent, that's what you will do." {MBZ.001.10} ____ "I bet they made fun of you in high school." {MBZ.001.11} ____ A vandal said you're crazy, must be true {MBZ.001.12} ____ according to Casliber's psycho-tool. :-) {MBZ.001.13} ____ It seems I've mixed up who this sonnet's for. {MBZ.001.14} ____ __________________________________. [Final line options] a. Perhaps for all who're locked outside the door. b. Yevgeny Yevtushenko or Al Gore? c. The ones locked out, or trapped inside the door? d. But everything's about me at its core. :-) e. In any case, some more Proofreader lore. LoL f. The angel of our nature, or the whore. g. Wise Elen of the Roads, please just ignore. h. A Russian femme fatale, or gods of war. i. And left no tally of the final score. j. (Proofreader's blocked for sonnets — here's one more.) --- Proofreader77 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

-- Proofreader77 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Proofreader77, look what you've just done! Didn't I ask you to ask to be unblocked in prose this time? Instead you wrote a sonnet and you did not ask to be unblocked. Didn't you just demonstrate that "the problems don't seem to have improved at all" as Shell would have said it? You know what... good for you, Proofreader77! It was worth starting this thread to get another sonnet from you.

The sonnet requires some clarifications. I did not want to bring the issue with Casliber up, but as long as it is in a sonnet...At his user page Casliber stated he is a psychiatrist. So this GovCom own psychiatrist diagnosed Proofreader77 (who by the way had his real name displayed on his user page) as "having a manic episode". The diagnosis was made over the NET, and because Casliber was concerned about "some privacy and delicate discussion" he did not post his diagnosis on wiki, he only emailed it to the members of GovCom. The funniest part of this affair is that Casliber diagnosed Proofreader77 with "having a manic episode" because of this edit that BTW Proofreader77 did not make, and did just the opposite - reverted it. The saddest part of this affair is that by sharing a diagnosis of a mental illness of a real person with at least 16 more people via email Casliber violated Hippocratic Oath in particular this part of it "All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal."

OK, Elen, as you saw Proofreader77 does not care about being unblocked, but this unblock is needed not for Proofreader77. This unblock is needed for Wikipedia, Elen. May I please ask you to think about this?--Mbz1 15:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Related reference re reversion mentioned above: The story of how Proofreader77 came to be (from archive of User:Proofreader77)
• Aside: Waving to Elen of the Roads for her "Hear hear!" here.

-- Proofreader77 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah,Proofreader77, I wish I saw your exchange with Elen, where she told you: "Sometimes you manage to say quite sensible things - I think you should stop it at once :) :)", earlier. She warned you that you should stop saying sensible things at once, and you continued to say sensible things on wiki. Now I realized all your blocks were justified :-)--Mbz1 19:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proofreader77: [Reference] Sonnets in the story

• Once upon a time ... a California judge asked Proofreader77 for input (as a crime victim) before sentencing of a violent felon. In reply, Proofreader77 wrote the judge a sonnet.
• Angered by the sonnet, a relative of the convicted felon posted an (SEO) attack on Proofreader77 in Wikipedia so that it would appear in Google results just above or below Proofreader77's website. (See: The story of how the Proofreader77 Wikipedia account came to be).

[skipping to the middle of the story]

• Proofreader77 (after first mentioning it to Jimbo) posted a sonnet on Jimbo's talk page in praise of Shell Kinney's election to ArbCom.
• Since Jimbo was at the time in the midst of requesting donations to Wikipedia, Proofreader "anointed" the Shell Kinney sonnet's significance by adding beneath it "a story of creative giving" about Proofreader77's $1,000 donation to Wikipedia.
• While the Shell Kinney sonnet (and the $1,000-story) were on Jimbo's page, David Tombe came to the page to discuss a topic with Jimbo ... which Jimbo indicated he had no further comment on, and suggested that David take a month or two off.

• When David Tombe (and then with the collaboration of Hell in a Bucket) nonetheless continued the discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Proofreader77 took time out from "the story of creative giving" to discourage David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket from continuing the discussion that Jimbo had indicated he was not interested in hearing more about for a month or two. (NOTE: Instead of backing up Proofreader77 who was backing up Jimbo, an administrator instead gave two warnings to Proofreader77 to stop bothering David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket.)
• Proofreader77 could not persuade the administrator of the propriety of what he was doing, so Proofreader stopped interacting with David Tombe and Hell in a Bucket and returned to "the story of creative giving" beneath the Shell Kinney sonnet.
• Gwen Gale then blocked Proofreader77 for allegedly ignoring the warnings, which he had in fact not ignored... and so Gwen Gale blocked Proofreader77 for posting about the $1,000 donation beneath the sonnet.

[skipping to the end of the story / and not exploring the Gwen Gale backstory]

• Future Perfect at Sunrise placed the current indef block on Proofreader77 BECAUSE of the sonnets Proofreader77 posted at ArbCom ... A case brought by Hell in a Bucket demanding that Gwen Gale be desysopped for her actions against Proofreader77.

Reference: 1st sonnet in the (self-collapsed) sonnet sequence Proofreader77 was indef blocked for posting at ArbCom
NOTE: The morass of blocking, block changing, talk page blocking and unblocking and reblocking at the top of Proofreader77's blocklog began in the wake of the two replies of Proofreader77 to Rodhullandemu on Jimbo's talk page. (The second being "Hear hear! ...") Proofreader77's ArbCom testimony begins with that incident. What is not mentioned in the sonnet is the impetus for Proofreader77 saying anything at all to Rodhullandemu's lecturing (which would not in itself usually warrant any comment). THE REASON was that a woman I knew had previously had her feelings hurt on Wikipedia ... had just posted her first Jimbo talkpage comment, and I did not want the reaction to her small post to be a lecture — and so I softened the effect of the lecture, with a touch of deflecting humor. (Note: I had noticed her undoing all her article talk page comments one by one after having been attacked so viciously, she wanted to "erase" herself from the page). No one could possibly expect an experienced Wikipedia administrator could not handle a lightly mocking reply. Yes, knight in armor:) Proofreader77 interceded with humor to protect the feelings of a woman who had previously been attacked on Wikipedia. Of course the story as told by those who do not like Proofreader77, framed the two (edit-conflicted) replies as a callous attack on a the clearly upset administrator Rodhullandemu and "would not stop." (Such is the framing by Proofreader77's adversaries of the edit-conflicted "Hear hear! ..." following the single lecture-deflecting lightly-mocking reply.) {ACA.001.01} ____ AN ADMIN MARKED their user page "{{deceased}}." {ACA.001.02} ____ BEFORE THAT, they said "fuck you," "gone," "goodbye." {ACA.001.03} ____ Proofreader must have killed them! Wretched beast! {ACA.001.04} ____ He Python-mocked them, said "Hear hear!" BUT WHY? {ACA.001.05} ____ Proof saw the admin acting strangely rude: {ACA.001.06} ____ Unnecessary lecturing some fun. {ACA.001.07} ____ No need to stomp in darkening the mood. {ACA.001.08} ____ PROOF'S RHETORIC is mockery. Just one. {ACA.001.09} ____ THE RUDE-MOOD ADMIN strangely then explodes. {ACA.001.10} ____ Proofreader rolls his eyes and says "Hear hear!" {ACA.001.11} ____ (and mocks himself as "nitwit"). Silly goads {ACA.001.12} ____ should not make all good sense just disappear. {ACA.001.13} ____ The admin's strange behavior made me check {ACA.001.14} ____ their page and see two words we don't expect. ...

Note: Proofreader77 does not write poetry, but rather "rhetorical verse." Disciplined prose with constraints of meter and rhyme. And (diff) links.
-- Proofreader77 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion by Mbz1

1. Proofreader77 was blocked by Gwen Gale for 31 hours because he donated $1000 dollars to wikipedia foundation, and mentioned he would ask his bank to donate $10,000
2. The events that happened a few months after Proofreader77's 48 hours block imposed by Fut.Perf for AN report (don't link to it in purpose to protect a privacy of another user) proved that Proofreasder77 AN report was valid, filed in a good faith and with a great consideration to protect the user privacy. In no way Proofreader77 was involved in any of the later events I am talking about.
3. Gwen Gale changed Proofreader77's block settings to indefinite for...requesting a blocked user template for his 48 hours block.
4. Most Proofreader77 blocks were posted by heavily involved Gwen Gale, by "by semi-involved" (his own words) Fut.Perf and by "(reluctantly) involved" (his own words) Rodhullandemu during the arbitration case, in which Gwen Gale was a main party. The blocks were imposed in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy
5. When Proofreader77 appealed the block to ArbCom via email, he first was publicly diagnosed with "having a manic episode", and then falsely accused of trying to "bribe their way out of blocks or sanctions - appropriate or otherwise". A "fishing expedition" CU was also run on the user.

Elen, if I have not seen this story unfolding in front of my own eyes, I would have never believed such thing could have ever happened, and with this I am outta here, the ball is in your court, Elen.--Mbz1 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meta coda by Proofreader77: "Wikipedia and the pleasure of bullying"

With a chiding smile to Elen of the Roads, let us be clear: all the blocks of Proofreader77 were mistaken (e.g., the 1st), improper (2nd & 3rd), or insane (e.g., the current indef for ArbCom testimony in sonnet form).

Proofreader77 is the most disciplined rhetorical agent on the planet. Let us be crystal clear: no diffs exist that illustrate Proofreader77 doing anything wrong. Proofreader's "crime" is that he makes the patterns of bullying inherent in "the way things are" manifest. And documents the bullying acts. Proofreader77 has diffs. (That is why Gwen Gale was so eager to soil Proofreader77's blemishless block log, that she made a mistake on that first block. And why she was so eager to seal up Proofreader77 in a tomb of templates after the last ridiculous indef.)

I.E., Wikipedia did not have a Proofreader77 problem — Wikipedia has a bullying problem.

The title of this topic was the subject line of an email I sent to a journalist in the context of recent stories about "not enough women" editing Wikipedia. In the email, I mentioned a young woman who indicated her lack of interest in working on Wikipedia BECAUSE the Wikipedians she had encountered were a bunch of phonies who enjoy pushing people around.

Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying.

Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying — as ArbCom's backing the bullying of Proofreader77 gives some flavor of.

Of course, time has passed. Proofreader77 can be unblocked — if he promises not to upset the bullies anymore.

The "standard offer" means: I hereby promise to meekly submit to bullying. I promise to quickly agree with accusers that I am at fault, notwithstanding the facts.

The standard offer is bullying encoded in policy.

In time, society (and Google and Lady Gada) will demand Wikipedia address its bullying problem.

It it not simply a matter of cruelty and humiliation ... but also the fact the the bullying affects the information at the top of the search results.

Proofreader77 could help re-design the structures to ameliorate the bullying problem — but it is an open question whether Wikipedia can function without capitalizing on the pleasures of bullying.
-- Proofreader77 09:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Proofreader77's (rhetorical) unblocking proposal

1. Gwen Gale writes a sonnet apologizing to Proofeader77 (and agrees to be mentored by Proofreader77 ;-)
2. Llywrch loses the tools for six months (for ANI bullying)
3. (previously desysopped) Future Perfect at Sunrise should be carefully scrutinized to determine if their bullying habits are in check.
4. Hans Adler gets a one-year siteban for setting up the cow pile that Gwen Gale stepped into (in the context of ANI bullying).
5. (Benjiboi who improperly created the context for the ANI bullying has already been banned)
6. The admin corps shall be informed to assume that when Proofreader77 is doing something they don't understand, he is countering something improper that may not be obvious.
7. Consider giving Proofreader77 an admin bit — to only be used to unblock himself when he has been improperly blocked — since no one else will unblock improper Proofreader77 blocks without fawning admission of guilt and promising "not to do it again." (he says with a smile, but true)
8. ARB: Casliber shall promise not to diagnose mental illness again based on the content of vandalism removed (probably because Llywrch emailed him the link along with a load of bullshit).
9. ARB: Newyorkbrad enrolls in charm school. :-)
10. ARB: Elen of the Roads posts "Hear hear!" beneath this proposal. LoL

(Alternate proposal: A year of ArbCom cases in which no one can block Proofreader77 for testifying in sonnets or not. Horrors! :-)

Let us assume the above time-saving "proposal" has a probability of zero.

If only we had an "infinite improbability drive" from Shell Kinney's favorite sci-fi book, Proofreader77 might be unblocked. :-)

I do not see one ... yet.
-- Kindest regards, Proofreader77 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tragedy in 3 acts by Elen of the Roads

Act 1

(Elen of the Roads declaims)

The Heart of Gold may not exist,
but a heart of gold I may possess
although Neil Young has never mined my heart
(his tunes are great but he needs to wash his hair)
this heart is true, and does proclaim
Proofreader was definitely blocked for his sonnets
(Audience cries "Boo! Hiss")
(Enter Aescepulus, in pursuit of his ophidians)
Where the hell are my snakes
Listen
You cannot diagnose a nutter
On this new fangled interweb thingy
'Cos they're all mad you see
(Exeunt, pursued by bear)
(Enter Odin, accompanied by dwarves carrying a cauldron)
Mead! Mead!
Get your Mead here!
Inspiration of poets!
Beverage of the gods!
(Exeunt, accompanied by ravens)
(Enter Proofreader)
Where's Odin? Did I miss him
Oh, for one taste of his divine Mead
Beverage of the gods!
Inspiration of poets!
What's this? One drop I spy
Spilt here upon this rock
I'll sup it up (produces paper straw)
And be inspired.

Act 2

(Elen of the Roads declaims)

The drops of Mead from Odin's cauldron
Spilt upon the ground so careless
For ever form the god's free portion
For the poetaster's share.
Alas, alack, bold Proofreader
I fear that is your blessed gift
And if you return with sonnets blazing
Lighting up the 'pedic sky
Some Hittite admin will, with unappreciative ear
Wield cruelly the banhammer again.

Act 3

Nevertheless (bold Elen proclaims)

If you wish it so, I will the unblock button deploy
But after that, no further guarantee can be made.
(Gestures to Proofreader)
Whaddaya say, kiddo?
Elen of the Roads 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! It was worth starting the thread to get this from you, Elen! I hope you do not mind I formatted your poem a bit for an easier reading. --Mbz1 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. Formatting was never my strong point. Elen of the Roads 22:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I did some more formatting. I hope my formatting kept the meaning of your tragedy in three acts intact. BTW, Elen, may I please ask you to consider adding one more act to your tragedy to unblock me too :-) I mean I am not even asking for Gwen Gale's apology to be written in a form of a sonnet :-) I would have agreed, if it is written in prose :-). OK, no worries, Elen, I am just kidding. There's no unblock possible for me ever, and I have no right to ask for my block to be lifted ever because my block is the price I have to pay for my own fault:giving up to Gwen's intimidation.--Mbz1 12:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[PAUSE] Formatting! (the missing link in the story)

PAUSE: Groucho says you said the secret word: "Formatting" Before "kiddo" replies to Elen of the Roads, we need a quick glance at the missing element of the story: how Gwen Gale came to be looking for a reason to block Proofreader77. Remember the afore-alluded-to "cow pile" that Hans Adler deposited at ANI that Gwen Gale stepped in? What brought him to do whatever that means? :-) It seems Hans Alder took a virulent dislike to the way Proofreader77 had formatted his testimony at an (improper) ANI. If Proofreader77 had had any experience of how to deal with ANI, he would have cut the ridiculous proceedings off at the beginning. But in your first ANI, you are clueless. For now, skipping to the end, Gwen Gale arrived (because Proofreader77 asked her for information on how to appeal improper ANI) and she imposed outrageous editing restrictions on Proofreader77 designed by Hans Adler: (10 messages per talk page, with 100 word limit per post, of no more than 1,000 byte size, and NO FORMATTING). AKA, The cow pile. :-) After Proofreader77 made clear he was documenting and preparing for an eventual Arbitration Case ... and garnering some political capital on some powerful user talk pages ... he gave Gwen Gale the opportunity to lift the (private) editing restrictions, and she did ... But (apparently) in being unhappy with having done so, began vigilantly looking for an excuse to block Proofreader77. Hence that first mistaken block for talking about the $1,000 donation. BOTTOM LINE: Formatting — Proofreader77 is guilty of formatting. Hence the whole story above.

While the story is paused, let me first say Hear hear! for Elen of the Roads' wonderful dramatic reply with cherry-on-top-delightful elements of every kind. Perfect!

Unfortunately the mere mention of "Formatting" has tweaked the coefficients in Proofreader77's trajectory matrix processors ... and so all things are being reweighed in the balance for every possible outcome, again. :-)

I.E., Kiddo is preparing to speak ... as soon as the number 42 pops out, or whatever. :-)

Stay tuned. (Sleeping now.)-- Proofreader77 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[CONTINUING amidst the PAUSE]

(As preamble to Proofreader77/"Kiddo's" reply to Elen of the Roads)

• ITEM: A subpage sonnet once linked to from ANI (now MfD'd):
  User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• NOTE: Hans Adler has said that Proofreader77's formatting makes him "look like a moron," and the formatting (and very few sonnets, in fact) are signs of "severe psychosis", and that Proofreader77 "does not communicate" ... and this all adds up to needing to get rid of Proofreader77 on the basis of "WP COMPETENCE."

• (COMMENT: Telling the target of bullying that they don't make sense, cannot be understood, is a standard tactic in bullying. At a more profoundly vile level of bullying, the target of bullying is categorized as insane.)

• (NO COMMENT: Hans Adler is a native German speaker. Proofreader77 is a native English speaker, who can speak in English "rhetorical verse" sonnets as easily as walking.... We could also note that Future Perfect at Sunrise is a native German speaker ... and Gwen Gale is Swiss, which would make her a native German speaker — there are 3 official languages of Switzerland, none of them English).

• NOW: Let us look at one of those MFDd sonnets which was originally written as a Wikipedia Signpost submission, and then linked to in initial response to Hans Adler's outrage about Proofreader77's formatting.

{WPO.001.01} ____ PRETEND "IGNORE ALL RULES" somewhere applied. {WPO.001.02} ____ Just humor me — we know it never does. {WPO.001.03} ____ (By now a hundred people have decried {WPO.001.04} ____ the format of this piece. A thousand "Huh?"s.) {WPO.001.05} ____ Don't underline, or bold, ALL CAP, or rhyme! {WPO.001.06} ____ Don't add subtopics when the topics shift! {WPO.001.07} ____ To make talk quick-to-skim would be a crime! {WPO.001.08} ____ It's never done that way! Don't get us miffed! {WPO.001.09} ____ To not talk like we do is to DISRUPT {WPO.001.10} ____ the habits we have long adapted to! {WPO.001.11} ____ To place your words like that is to corrupt {WPO.001.12} ____ old standards of community toward new! {WPO.001.13} ____ RIGHT HERE is where CIVILITY kicks in: {WPO.001.14} ____ TO YELL at talking diff'rently's a sin.

"DON'T PANIC" :-) Stay tuned for Proofreader77/"Kiddo's" reply to Elen of the Roads.
-- Proofreader77 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"kiddo" (aka Proofreader77) replies to Elen of the Roads

Preliminary framing

Consider this comment by Proofreader77 (on an RFA talk page)
"The myth of content creation" which received some agreement.

• "Hear hear! ... " by Elen of the Roads
• A barnstar by another administrator.
• Gwen Gale "wholly agree"d
• Note: "chaos control," "current events wrangling," en:Sarah Palin, and en:Roman Polanski

Now

• Question: What useful work was Proofreader77 doing on Wikipedia (before the cow pile at ANI .. about the Roman Polanski article in the wake of his arrest in Switzerland for a 30-year-old unresolved case)?

• Answer: RC patrol, and "current events wrangling" on passion-inflamed, POV-embattled articles.

• Question: Why are we talking about this in the context of unblocking? :-)

• Answer: Because people not understanding (and instead attacking) Proofreader77 ... shifted him from doing "useful" work, to wading into the "political" morass of the Wikipedia interior to deal with the bullying — absolutely necessary since you cannot do anything useful around contentious issues if you're being harrassed by admins (e.g., ridiculously being forced to count the number of words and characters you are posting, etc.... and collaterally emboldening SPA's to be a worse problem than they already are.)
• Note: Jehochman finally got around to having to indef the problematic SPA, which wouldn't have been necessary if reasonable discussion with Proofreader77 had taken place — instead of the ridiculous level of harassment ... about formating and sonnets ... AND the extraordinary measures which Proofreader77 was having to resort to due to the sui generis Roman Polanski current events issues.

Items and questions/answers for clarification
ITEM: Note the topic title of a message posted by Proofreader77 on the talk page of (now-banned) Benjiboi/Banjeboi. Amidst extraordinary measures ITEM: Read the framing of steps for dispute resolution Proofreader77 posted to Bejiboi/Banjeboi's talk page: Polanski NPOV dispute (summary) FYI Note the discussion of the two sonnets used AFTER 100,000K of futile argument had reached an impasse ... and which resulted in an actual addition to the article. Also note that the link to the sonnets is red — because of MfD's of Proofreader77's subpages since Proofreader77 has been indef blocked. (DON'T PANIC, I have copies. :-) Ponder the description of how and why Proofreader is using rhetorical verse in that context. Note that Proofreader77 is perfectly willing to explain and discuss what he is doing.   Question: How many sonnets did Proofreader77 ever use on Roman Polanski talk in the hundreds of hours deployed there? Answer: 3 Question: How many messages were posted to Proofreader77's talk page about his formatting, sonnets, and number of messages on Roman Polanski talk BEFORE (now-banned) Benjiboi-Banjeboi notified him of an ANI about it? Answer: None. Question: What was the next message beneath the notification of the ANI on Proofreader77's talk page: Answer: Hans Adler fussing about the formatting saying it made Proofreader77 "look like a moron."

-- Proofreader77 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"kiddo"/P77 directly responds to Elen of the Roads offer

Nothing should be done that solves nothing.

Extensive elaboration ... ... ...
Even if Elen of the Roads is willing to unblock Proofreader77 without qualifications — which would not have the consensus of the Arbitration Committee (... and if an ANI were called, the anti-Proofreader77 members of the community and their friends/allies and the usual suspects hanging around ANI to bully people would most likely quickly produce a bullet list of opposes to unblocking) — the situation would not be, um, reasonable. I cannot imagine the Arbitration Committee is willing to endure a stream of cases about this. And, of course, the Arbitration Committee procedures are not really suitable for resolving the issues — which are not simply that Proofreader77 has been wronged, but that there are existing systemic issues which allow such wronging to happen. Proofreader77 is a artist. Artists, good ones, are "disruptive" — in good ways. One (former) administrator gave Proofreader a barnstar for posting a (twice, improperly-removed) sonnet into an RfC. (You can read it at the top of ChildofMidnight's talk page.) Administrator Killerchahuahua, who does not like Proofreader77s formatting :-), still gave him a barnstar for deflecting some anger on her page with a lighthearted rhetorical interaction (which Shell Kinney noticed and called: "Awesome" — that smile from Shell inspiring a sonnet in honor of her election to ArbCom posted to Jimbo's page ... but you know the rest of the story). So, at the moment, there is not a "creative solution" to the Proofreader77 unblocking available ... but I do believe some day there will be. I.E., Bless you, but no. My salute to Mbz1 who invested passionate labor on behalf of Prooreader77 here (a complete surprise to me when it happened), and my profound thanks to Elen of the Roads for her gracious forbearance, and delightful participation in this, hmmm, event. :-) Perhaps, surprisingly, I will also thank Gwen Gale. The first and (almost) only administrator I turned to for information about Wikipedia ... and without her misstep into the cow pile :-), I would not know all that I know ... that I know now about Wikipedia. LoL Laughing, but that's ultimately a very good thing. Phrase to remember: "Amidst extraordinary measures" What Proofreader77 was doing on Roman Polanski talk was unusual. The situation was unusual. Keep in mind that no sonnet appeared there until AFTER 100K of impossible to resolve POV perspective contentions. There was a tsunami of blinding hatred against Polanki's BLP ... and a very rhetorically talented (and Wikipedia knowledgeable) SPA who arrived to turn the sexual assault summary into a document for the prosecution. The SPA came because what's in Wikipedia is at the top of the search results. This (fellow) Californian knew that lazy journalists and most people who were interested would read the short summary in the Roman Polanski BLP. He expected it to have a real-world effect on the case. Of course, eventually Polanski was released by the Swiss — and those few paragraphs in a Wikipedia BLP no longer carry such significance. They no longer require extraordinary measures on behalf of maintaining NPOV in the biography of a living person. (Wave to all. Bows. Exits.) Proofreader77 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) PS PS You might give Proofreader77 the bit for one minute, and I'll unblock Mbz1. Not that that that will solve anything. :-) -- Proofreader77 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) PPS For the record: As for the other Proofreader77 blocks in the middle, those had to do with bullying in the form of improper discussion collapsing (improper interference in discussion) — and Proofreader77 didn't break the rules there either, and would not have been blocked if not for that first mistaken block opening the door to abuse. That's the way it works. -- Proofreader77 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) PDF/REF Why speak in sonnets? P77 Meta comment: bullying and the (time) cost of fairness tldr? It is asserted (and true on its face) that the volunteers cannot have their time consumed addressing every perceived unfairness. True, but also a license to bully. A hard problem — which Wikipedia will nonetheless be forced to find solutions to. It is briefly amusing to ponder how many hundreds of hours it would take to just (accurately, rather than a mob repeating fragments of un-diffed slander) deal with the Proofreader77 case. Of course compare those hundreds of hours ... with the nearly zero time cost of simply asking Proofreader77 why he was doing what he was doing — rather than leaping to a bullying assault. Perhaps refrain from ridiculous character assassination on the basis of formatting and sonnets. If someone wants to put their project page and talk page comments in sonnet form, let them. Who cares? Stop attacking difference. Wikipedia must adjust and flow with change — invite the new, or at least ignore it.

Saves time. :-)

Question for Elen of the Roads

Any suggestions for who you'd like to play you in the Wikipedia movie? :-)

(For Proofreader77, I was thinking George Clooney ... or Milla Jovovich! ;-)
-- Proofreader77 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Epilogue by Mbz1

I have enjoyed poetic conversation,
And in the end I have to underscore
Proof wrote a sonnet for the arbitration,
Got blocked, learned nothing, wrote some more.

His punishment was clearly not enough,
And he just said he's fine with being blocked!
Does he believe his sonnets are hot stuff?!
I should admit that I am more than shocked.

And now even Elen, even me
Are speaking poems, Elen, what a knock!
What should be done to Proof to set us free?
I'd say he should get punished with ... unblock :-)

So, Elen, we still have some time left before the curtain falls otherwise we are in danger to speak poems for the rest of our lives :-) --Mbz1 02:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A time for barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I was not sure I should appeal to Elen of the Roads What, if she just deletes my post, what, if she just explodes? What, if idea with appeal is nothing, but a bloomer? But look at her, she understood, and proved it with great humor! Thank you, Elen! Mbz1 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannot wait to see how this "tragedy in 3 acts" will end up :-)--Mbz1 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, this truly made me LOL. Philippe (WMF) 06:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,Philippe.--Mbz1 02:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile at a (subpaged) ANI ...

An irresistable thematic addendum appears at the bottom of the page:

“ Since this is about behavior, let me discuss how all this started. There are two quite common ways of formatting ... ”

No comment. :-)

But will mention with pleasure some comments of Bobthefish2 — which of course Hitchhiked in my brain to Babel fish.

So ... from the high-angle view from a portal on the Heart of Gold ... I'll add with hands waving in the direction of the event horizon: ...

• Item: Last year I also asked a venture capitalist to donate to the foundation at the Patron level ($15,000), and he replied:

“ I feel Wikipedia may not have the same relevance in the future...

Of course, I may be wrong.

”

Selah. :-) (Cue the German/Austrian Wikipedia Western Musical video ... for all those in, and behind, bars ... waiting for high noon some day ... before the whiskey runs out. LoL)
Cheers. -- Proofreader77 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Creative solution" proposal: The limerick consensus unblock

Resolved:

His sonnets and format beguiled them
to leap on Proofreader — defile him.
Confusion's turned clear.
It's time for a beer.
His block log's ALL due to a style whim.

1. Post the above on an unlinked subpage at AN/I.
2. ALL arbs sip something, then affirm with their signature. (Humorous comments allowed.)
3. Archive template the subpage with a header warning that any attempt to MfD it will result in permanent sitebans for all concerned.
4. THEN Elen of the Roads unblocks Proofreader77 with her choice of words which capture the sense of the limerick and unanimous Arbitration Committee assent ... with a link to the diff of the template archiving of the aforementioned subpage.
5. Comment: This will place the Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia in a good light if a movie should result from the story of all this. I.E., Lady Gaga and Google would be pleased. (smiling, but true)

Probability gauge reads: slightly above zero. But possible.
(More diffs can be provided by request, if the information already on this page is insufficient.)

For your (serious) consideration, adieu. -- Proofreader77 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Post-event (thematic) dancing ...

More about bullying

When Proofreader77 was blocked for 48 hours, he requested adding a blocked user template to his talk page, and was told by his blocking administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise "If you want a template on your page, you know (Category:User block templates|where to find them); feel free to paste one yourself if you like." Of course Proofreader77 had neither time nor need to add the template himself because Gwen Gale blocked him indefinitely (for requesting "blocked user" template you know), and did add the requested template to the editor's talk page.

Me on the other hand was refused even in "indefinite blocked user template".When Gwen Gale blocked me indefinitely I myself added "indefinitely blocked user" template to my talk page because I knew, if I would not add it myself, it would be added by such users as for example tarc, who are enjoying performing grave dancing. Gwen removed the template I added two times with edit summary:"not posted by the blocking admin, could mislead other editors", and after the second time she removed my talk page access without warning. How adding "indefinitely blocked user" template to an indefinitely blocked user's talk page could mislead other editors?

Are there any other names to call the administrative action of the two examples I provided above except "bulling" and "intimidation"? Don't you see that some administrators are having the pleasure of bullying?--Mbz1 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I followed one of the links presented at this page to en:user:Trusilver. At his user page the editor explains why his 13-years old daughter declined editing wikipedia after writing a few articles. She said:"Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others." The administrator was desysoped because he unblocked an editor blocked to enforce an arbitration case. I am not sure, en:user:Trusilver misused his tools in this particular situation, but I am sure that an admin, who blocks an editor (BTW for nothing) in a middle of an arbitration case concerning improper blocks of this very editor imposed by this very admin, did misuse her/his tools big because while improper unblocking is a good faith mistake, improper blocking by an involved administrator is bulling and harassment.Wikipedia would have won, if there were more admins as Trusilver and less as Gwen Gale. --Mbz1 19:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[View from space] The irony of the Roman Polanski extradition saga (w Google assist)

Google "90 day state prison sentence" (in news archives) for the single result.

What the original judge was trying to achieve (which seems entirely reasonable) was get Polanski to voluntarily deport himself.

He succeeded. :-)

Footnote: The judge intended to impose the 90 day sentence in absentia after Polanski fled — but before he could, Polanski's lawyer had him removed from the case. ... Decades later a documentary filmmaker would make a film about all this, which inspired Polanski to seek the dropping of charges .. which inspired the District Attorney of Los Angeles to have Polanski arrested in Switzerland and extradited back (rather than admit there was some flaw in the judicial process) ... But a wise woman of the Swiss judicial system, looking at the situation, let Polanski go.

Pressing the button on the infinite improbability drive ... whoosh. -- Proofreader77 22:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse :-)

Hi Elen, if worse comes to worse :-), and Proofreader77(kiddo) cannot be unblocked, and even his user page cannot be untemplated, maybe you'd agree to replace the current template with the one I designed specially for this user :-)

This user is indefinitely blocked from editing. This user's situation is quite unique. Not only he is the sole user who donated 1,000 dollars to Wikimedia Foundation, and is blocked, but he is blocked because he donated 1,000 dollars to Wikimedia Foundation. Please do not unblock this user before he promises to make no donations to Wikimedia Foundation ever again.

Elen, I am sorry for continuing posting to your talk page, but Proofreader77's story (I'd call it "tragicomedy") is so funny, and so sad,and so unique (at least I do not know anything similar) that I cannot stop laughing, and coming up with something new to post here all the time.On the other hand I hope you appreciate that thanks to me starting this appeal your boring meta talk page has became anything but boring :-)

I'll try to stay off your talk page, and off the project altogether.

If for some reasons :-) the template I designed cannot be used now maybe it could be used at least for one day April 1, 2012 ;-) but I hope by that time the editor would be unblocked, would he not?--Mbz1 04:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote

e.g., Block #3:
1st revert of discussion interference (undo hat) 2nd revert of discussion interference (undo hat) 3rd revert of discussion interference (undo hat) Note: It requires a 4th for blocking at AN/3. Proofreader performed exactly 3 for purpose of documentation of the discussion interference for a future ArbCom. Note: Proofreader77 placed warnings on each hatting editor's talk page that their actions were improper "discussion interference" [1] [2] [3] Note: Proofreader77 also documented all diffs on his own talk page while this was going on. (ANI: Incident concluded) Proofreader77 responds to ANI topic about this: "The improper reverts have been undone. Warnings have been issued. Everything has been documneted for Arbcom.)" Mbisanz THEN blocks Proofreader77 for "Edit warring". Questions: What was the topic being (improperly) hatted? Motion to nullify RfC (procedural fouls) aka What would Google think? What prompted the hatting? Proofreader77 responded to the "DNFTT" (Do not feed the trolls): Ah, a personal attack. Aspersion of "troll." (Add to the "Powerpoint bullet" file :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC) BOTTOM LINE: Proofreader77 knows how to deal with bullying. Identify it. Document it. Address it. --Proofreader77 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Consider: The sonnetized comment could have been left alone in the RfC. Consider: OR The motion on the talk page because the sonnet was removed twice, could have been left alone. Consider: Prodego (ask Tanthalus39, ah too late I see) could refrain from interfering in a discussion where he doesn't have the context to act sensibly. (If Prodego hadn't rushed in to improperly warn Proofreader77, there would have been no excuse for the mistaken first block by Gwen Gale.) Consider: Hans Adler could have attempted to read the well-documented, easy-to-skim summary notes (regarding the situation in the Roman Polanski BLP) of the issue at AN/I ... rather than immediately attacking Proofreader77 for his formatting. If it isn't in an article, leave people alone to speak as they wish. (Allowing bullying does NOT benefit the project.) OR ... applaud. The Socratic Barnstar For bringing humor and surrealism to an already unintentionally humorous and surreal situation. For this and your long history of engaging in the Socratic spirit of humorously acknowledging idiocy when you see it, I award you this barnstar. They made him drink hemlock, the worst they can do to you is issue a block. That's 2500 years of progress for you. Trusilver 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Of course, some might say Proofreader77 could just avoid upsetting people. Never say anything they don't like. In a style they don't like. Yeah, right. Run that by Lady Gaga and Google. :-) Ah yes, that RfC sonnet? {CoM.001.01} ____ WHEN GANGS OF BULLIES gather, Midnight comes {CoM.001.02} ____ destabilizing bullshit with her own. {CoM.001.03} ____ The truth is wasted on the nasty bums {CoM.001.04} ____ who fill up "ad hoc firing squads" well known ... {CoM.001.05} ____ ... at ANI — which gives the vile a role {CoM.001.06} ____ with T-shirts marked "community" to wear. {CoM.001.07} ____ Decision on the facts is not the goal. {CoM.001.08} ____ Humiliation is. No, not "what's fair." {CoM.001.09} ____ Some vague aspersion cast is made to stick {CoM.001.10} ____ by snowball bullshit that's then packed on top. {CoM.001.11} ____ Antagonizing target till they're sick {CoM.001.12} ____ with social blows which no one will make stop. {CoM.001.13} ____ THEN ChildofMidnight comes and says: FUCK THAT! {CoM.001.14} ____ (No matter if you're Wales or Bureaucrat.) -- Proofreader77 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

RfQ (Request for Questions) for Mbz1 or Proofreader77

[If there are any, add bullet at left margin]

(Requisite) Concluding Proofreader77 sonnet series (to ArbCom)

SONNET SERIES: WHEN PRODEGO BLOCKED TANTHALAS THREE NINE (Act 1 of 3)
{ERM.001.01} ____ WHEN PRODEGO BLOCKED TANTHALAS THREE NINE {ERM.001.02} ____ HE CLUELESSLY MISFRAMED the case at hand. {ERM.001.03} ____ Note: wrongly warned Proofreader.* That's a sign {ERM.001.04} ____ perhaps that "clueless" (?) Prodego be banned. * Prodego's improper warning was referenced when Gwen Gale (mistakenly) blocked Proofreader77 (who had obeyed the improper warning) for block #1. {ERM.001.05} ____ BUT CLUELESSNESS does not belong to Prod. {ERM.001.06} ____ There's surely lots of that to go around. {ERM.001.07} ____ (Towards "ArbCom versus Tanthalas" I'll nod, {ERM.001.08} ____ though qualify before we run aground. :-) {ERM.001.09} ____ Some situations are more than they seem. {ERM.001.10} ____ The "obvious" may not be that at all. {ERM.001.11} ____ (Is that perhaps this sonnet's vital meme?) {ERM.001.12} ____ BEFORE one swings the racket, SEE the ball. {ERM.001.13} ____ BUT TIME IS SHORT — if something round is there {ERM.001.14} ____ some swing because their racket's in the air. {ERM.002.01} ____ BEFORE ONE GETS THE RACKET one should learn {ERM.002.02} ____ a balled up hedgehog should not cross the net. {ERM.002.03} ____ A tennis ball, or hedgehog? ... Must discern. :-) {ERM.002.04} ____ (The French are wise — a hedgehog you can't get. [LoL]) {ERM.002.05} ____ "Discussion interference" (see Block 3) {ERM.002.06} ____ is what Proofreader calls an unwise act {ERM.002.07} ____ (in public conversation) to not see {ERM.002.08} ____ the ball, but strike a thing that shant be whacked. {ERM.002.09} ____ When Jimbo told Tombe/(Hell) he'd had enough {ERM.002.10} ____ (on Jimbo's talk page), Proof could hold that line. {ERM.002.11} ____ When Malleus did likewise, Tan could rough {ERM.002.12} ____ the interlopers up a bit. That's fine! {ERM.002.13} ____ If Prodego had kept his racket sheathed, {ERM.002.14} ____ two useful members would not now be wreathed. ... to be continued, perhaps :-) --- Proofreader77 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC) REFERENCE: Deeply indented under the topic Turian mentorship(!), without a sub-header/highlight of any kind: This line appeared at AN/I. I intend to block Tanthalas39. For his edits: [4] [5] [6] and [7] as well. Raise any objections now. Prodego talk 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) 15 minutes later (like a clock had been set) Prodego blocked Tanthalas39 without a word of warning to his talk page. -- Proofreader77 18:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Act 2
{ERM.003.01} ____ THE RHETORIC OF BLOCK LOGS rises here. {ERM.003.02} ____ [Clear] is a badge of HONOR on this site. {ERM.003.03} ____ You'd rarely win the mop if there's a smear. {ERM.003.04} ____ WHEN PRODEGO SLAPPED TAN it overwhelmed ... {ERM.003.05} ____ ... all wheelwar rules — and IAR kicked in. {ERM.003.06} ____ A clueless, sneaky, block — beyond all sense. {ERM.003.07} ____ OUTRAGEOUS AND INSULTING. Mortal sin. {ERM.003.08} ____ Yes, Tan responded rightly — though you wince. {ERM.003.09} ____ The fitting, right response was what Tan did. {ERM.003.10} ____ Unblock that crazy block, and slap right back. {ERM.003.11} ____ (Don't yell about "wheel" rules — Prod made bad bid {ERM.003.12} ____ and gave a clear-logged admin's face a smack.) (couplet option A) {ERM.003.13} ____ Tan oft denounced some bullshit. This crap's worse. {ERM.003.14} ____ Yet Prodego kept license for the hearse. (couplet option B) {ERM.003.13} ____ Tan handled the "emergency" post haste. {ERM.003.14} ____ But arbs fucked up the aftermath. Such waste! {ERM.004.01} ____ THE RHETORIC OF SONNETS means I speak {ERM.004.02} ____ with somewhat more truth license than in prose. {ERM.004.03} ____ The role of ORATOR's not for the meek. {ERM.004.04} ____ Sometimes I dance. Sometimes dance on the nose. :-) {ERM.004.05} ____ Too many admins poke mop handles in- {ERM.004.06} ____ to public talk to squelch speech they don't like {ERM.004.07} ____ (for content or for style), or just to win {ERM.004.08} ____ dick-swinging pleasure points. Control the mike. {ERM.004.09} ____ "Discussion interference" I'll revert {ERM.004.10} ____ like vandalism — for which there's no rule {ERM.004.11} ____ of 3RR. And will not let them hurt, {ERM.004.12} ____ humiliate, like bullies in high school. {ERM.004.13} ____ The arbs can vote for bullying, or me. {ERM.004.14} ____ (We know their choice last time. Now let us see.) ... to be continued, perhaps :-) --Proofreader77 01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Act 3
{ERM.005.01} ____ TWAS TAN who left word I'm "de facto banned." {ERM.005.02} ____ Of course, he'd also lowered Gwen's indef {ERM.005.03} ____ because she could not give diffs why I'm canned. {ERM.005.04} ____ And I'm not much concerned by words with "F." {ERM.005.05} ____ The "fuck(ing)" in first diff that Prodego {ERM.005.06} ____ so quietly plopped in at ANI {ERM.005.07} ____ is meant to make you quickly say "ah, so" {ERM.005.08} ____ but others should not make you bat an eye. {ERM.005.09} ____ Oh yes, and Malleus. His talk page is {ERM.005.10} ____ the land of anti-bullshit (and show tunes :-) {ERM.005.11} ____ (If Malleus was here, he'd take a whiz {ERM.005.12} ____ on "show tunes" line) where admins are buffoons. {ERM.005.13} ____ In Mal's saloon, your bit don't mean a thing. {ERM.005.14} ____ How vile that's where Prod chose to take that swing. {ERM.006.01} ____ NOW TO CONCLUDE, why tell of Prod and Tan? {ERM.006.02} ____ Because Proof seven seven knows the shit. :-) {ERM.006.03} ____ I'VE PROVED MY BLOCKS WERE BAD and am the man {ERM.006.04} ____ who added thousand dollars to his wit. :-) {ERM.006.05} ____ To women crying for him, Jesus said: {ERM.006.06} ____ Weep for yourselves, if they'll do this to me {ERM.006.07} ____ what will they do to you? as his wounds bled. {ERM.006.08} ____ (I see Casliber write that on his knee. [LoL]) {ERM.006.09} ____ No, most folks will submit to social force. {ERM.006.10} ____ The Germans went along because most did. {ERM.006.11} ____ (At last, the Godwin rule. :-) We've run our course.) {ERM.006.12} ____ This sonnet will let "German" close the lid. {ERM.006.13} ____ The German speakers seem to hate my verse. {ERM.006.14} ____ But surely German sonnets would be worse. :-)

Selah.

Veteran Editor II

Proofreader77 02:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My final request

Hi Elen,

• Because (as you admitted in a few places "But equally, there never was an RfC, there never was a massive Arbcom investigation. Everyone Mbz1 mailed it to looked at it and said "can't see it myself" and left it at that, often I suspect without emailing their response back to Mbz1." ) I was never given a dispute resolution;

• Because I was blocked as a result of cowardly, dishonest, closed tribunal by arbcom, tribunal, in which I was not allowed to participate,a dirty tribunal that I knew nothing about;

• Because I was blocked in the violation of the blocking policy "Blocks should not be punitive" ;

• Because I was banned by very dirty,very cowardly, and mostly anonymous lynch mob while the community kept silent;

• Because, when I was reading the last email from arbcom, I felt like I was reading a verdict written at the time of the Inquisition;

• Because wikipedia's regime did nothing to stop bullying even after a bullied kid felt like killing himself;

• Because I am proud to be banned by such regime;

• Because I am proud to be banned from such regime.

I decided

That I no longer want to be associated with wikipedia in any way, as I would not have liked to be associated with any regime that treats human beings like that.

That's why I request

1. Blanking my English wikipedia talk page;
2. Removing everything, but banned user template from my English wikipedia user page;
3. Redirecting my talk page to my user page.

Thanks for acting on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way

I believe you did the right thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought your comment to the Arbs was quite apt. There is no comeback for saying what was said to you, and because of that, people say things that alter the tone of a discussion completely, but would never be acceptable said in public. This was a fairly mild instance. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The right to defend one's self is the oldest British right - King John and the Manga Carta. You do a favor to your nation and to your heritage (to go off Malleus and your convo) by exposing the behind the scene antic. I wish that you did more, but as is obvious, even a tiny move had huge blow back. The odd thing is that they didn't think that you needed to be removed completely to keep you from releasing all of the ArbCom-l emails. Really, they trust you so much to not take emergency measures now before you can start grabbing things from the Wiki and such while they publicly try to execute you. That shows that their statements about you do not match their actual feelings. Politics and merely politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh, everything is politics these days. I'm sure they can tell perfectly well between sensitive personal data and things one party or another just doesn't want out in the daylight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything always was politics. That was revealed by the ArbCom-l. I like how I was always attacked for being "paranoid" yet three people (Geogre, SDJ, and Jack Merridew) were rampant sock masters that had strong friends within ArbCom who helped them (knowingly or unknowingly) continue to sock or act in direct contradiction to policy while also being extremely incivil under all of their names. The Rlevse matter was also pretty bad. I was said to be "paranoid" about Folantin in the same email chain Folantin sent to the ArbCom logs of my IRC chatroom and an admittance I was being followed for 2 months. The same Folantin who sent out lots of personal information about myself that was later posted by Moreschi in the ArbCom case (who, it was ruled, even though they had hundreds of shared AfD votes and page edits, that they "weren't working together"). Everything is politics. Everything is faction. It isn't paranoia, but commonsense. AGF is meaningless when there is such a disregard for basic respect of others in that these games are played. No hidden conversations, no sock puppets, and the power derived by certain people will vanish. But that will never be fixed because it is the only way power can be attained. This is the greatest threat to the Wiki and is a threat at all levels. I always advocated that people be forced to identify before they could edit and tight controls kept in place to ensure that you have one account simply because it would go a huge way in preventing "cheating" in the discussion process. Cheating is one way a lot of these problems happen. Just look at all of the logged out editing and sock puppets that have appeared to attack you. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Things would be so much easier if things were just settled by a dance off. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Ottava, how's it hanging? Still barking up the wrong end of the stick, I see, and providing connoisseurs of irony with a feast. A word of advice: if you're brazen enough to try to recruit meatpuppets and hatch plots - including one against ArbCom - on the main IRC channel (you know, the public one that everyone can read), don't be surprised if word gets round, folks get "paranoid" and logs are recorded. Funnily enough, I'd never even been on IRC before a little bird told me you were on there scheming away against me and others, and I haven't been on it since. But, as you so wisely say, "everything is politics", and few people have contributed more to Wikipedia's "office politics" than you. Talking of politics, wasn't the "Manga Carta" part of Japanese history? Just saying. All the best.--Folantin (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The IRC logs don't say what you claim they say, but do say that you admitted to stalking me on IRC. And many others admitted that you were on IRC going back, and your name doesn't appear in the chat logs which suggests that you sat on IRC on secret names. That isn't "honest" behavior. Even your own statement about "a little bird" is an admittance that you worked with people in a harassment campaign. It isn't a coincidence that so much personal information about me was leaked in emails and even on the case page. Normal people would be ashamed at doing the actions you did. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And many others admitted that you were on IRC going back. And these others are? For example?

You want me to post the IRC logs? I've still got a few conversations left in my files. There's some fascinating stuff there and I can redact the personal stuff. In the event, I don't think I had to use any of it in the ArbCom case. I'll admit it was an eye-opener though. The only bit I ever sent to ArbCom was after you were banned and you were plotting revenge - on the public channel. --Folantin (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused at your attempt to appear to not be a stalker and someone out to harass me. It seems like you are doing whatever in your power to verify any concerns I had regarding you. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't go slagging off and plotting against people in public forums then (like this one or IRC). It's a simple lesson. If you hadn't mentioned me on this page, I wouldn't be here. If you hadn't been plotting against me on IRC, I wouldn't have logged it. BTW I'm still waiting for details of those mysterious "others" you mentioned. --Folantin (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You admitted above you were following me in chat. You haven't denied it. You can't say I "slogged off" when you admit to everything I stated. You, however, have stalked my contribs. It doesn't show good behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The stalker stalked LOL. All I did was monitor you stalking me on IRC for two months. Once again, just who are these mysterious "others"? --Folantin (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

2 months of watching my actions on IRC on a secret name while you claimed before that you never used IRC. You also claimed that you came on to see me conspiring against ArbCom but your own email to ArbCom has no such thing in it. The date you emailed ArbCom was "date 22 December 2009 04:56". Final Decision was 20 December. At the very earliest, you would have had to be in that chat since October. My first beef with Risker started in October when I filed an RfC against her. I wouldn't have thought she would have done other but recuse in a case, and there is no statement of me saying things about her not recusing or seeking "revenge" for it before then. The chat you sent them took place at 11:31 PM EST on December 21st. Your statement on ArbCom says "I've been monitoring IRC for the past two months to see what Ottava Rima has been up to as he frequently canvasses there". That was before my case (it started in November). That was before I was supposedly attacking any Arbitrator. You can't even keep your story straight. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) My story is completely straight, but your comprehension skills are sadly inadequate. You were plotting against me on IRC from October and before. You plotted against Risker in December. See how that works?

Now how about naming any of those mysterious "others". --Nitnalof (AKA: Folantin) (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Socking now? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There's some kind of bug in the system. Not very effective way of "socking", declaring who I am, is it? Now, how about those names? --Nitnalof (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but once you start socking you no longer have the right to talk to me. Elen has what I have to say as does the ArbCom. You should have been banned for your abusive behavior a long time ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL LOL Oh dear, oh dear. Clutching at straws because you can't back up your statements with facts. Nothing changes, does it? You got caught stalking me on IRC three years ago. Get over it. --Nitnalof (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The logs, available to WR users, show that there was no mention by anyone of your name, Folantin, in September or October on IRC. Oncec again, you are making things up when it is easy to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For example: [21:00:53] <Ottava> Im tired of Folantin disrupting
::::::[21:00:53]<Ottava> it is rather clear that they are wrong

[21:00:57] <Ottava> I wish someone would just ban them

[21:01:20] <Ottava> sigh
--Nitnalof (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Still not come up with any names? --Nitnalof (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Took place November 1st and the only time in November anything was ever said about you. Your "two months" would have suggested that you started in October because of an ongoing attacks by me on you in the channel. You obviously made up those attacks when you emailed ArbCom asking for my talk page access to be removed. You continue to say things that are easy to verify as wrong on an Arbitrator's talk page. Why do you think that is appropriate behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got plenty of other stuff about me and others. You haven't got any names. The only reason I'm on "this arbitator's page" is because you were here slagging me off. --Nitnalof (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing said of you in September and October. There was one statement said in November. That does not match anything you said to ArbCom. Furthermore, you are here to harass as you have always appeared to harass. And it was already stated that Riana informed me over Skype that she witnessed you and Moreschi talking often in IRC and was a participant in the chats. That evidence was already submitted to ArbCom and was even part of what I originally approached Coren about when I gave him information of you two possibly being the same person or meatpuppets of each other. She was not the only one who came to me and contacted ArbCom about it, and you never denied it until now after your timeline was exposed as horribly wrong. You were stalking me for a long time and now, when you realize it makes you look really bad, you are trying to pretend otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL Who's Riana? --Nitnalof (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Riana, 751 shared pages with Moreschi and 131 shared pages with Folantin (including your user talk page). You even voted on her RfA. It is interesting how you suddenly appeared here, on Meta, when you were "on Wikibreak". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent) Looks like I voted on her RfA way back in 2007 and she thanked me on my talk page (the only entry I can find there). I voted on a lot of RfAs back then. And now we're best buddies on IRC, even though I've never chatted with her there. So either you or she is fantasising. Conveniently, she isn't around to ask, but I might get in touch with ArbCom to see what your "secret" evidence consists of. This is all very revealing. --Nitnalof (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I said the person was on IRC. I never said that you were best of buddies. Obviously not if she was willing to come to me about you sharing my personal information out. How else did I know that you were the one emailing people my info, especially the stuff that Moreschi posted on the ArbCom page when outing me? And you already admitted to ArbCom that you were stalking IRC, and since your name doesn't appear you were using another name. Your reasons for stalking me are non-existent, which suggests that you willfully misrepresented yourself to ArbCom in email, just as you continued to do so above. P.S. Moreschi and her were admin coaches together so you can't claim that she didn't know him. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Obviously not if she was willing to come to me about you sharing my personal information out." Yet more BS. "since your name doesn't appear you were using another name". Nope. Lots of people log IRC. They use bots. "which suggests that you willfully misrepresented yourself to ArbCom in email". I've only written one e-mail to Arbcom. The reply I received said that you were well-known for this kind of behaviour on IRC. --Nitnalof (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lots of people log IRC" - so are you saying that when you told ArbCom that you came to the IRC channel 2 months before sending them the logs to watch me that you didn't actually come to the IRC channel to watch me? Basically, you are contradicting what you said before. Did you lie then or are you lying now? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I had access to logs. Like you apparently have access to logs on WR.It's the main public IRC channel. Everyone is logging it. I sent ArbCom a fragment of an IRC log from December when you were threatening "revenge". Nobody was surprised at your behaviour. --Nitnalof (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"I've been monitoring IRC for the past two months " not "I was sent logs". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sent logs. That's monitoring. Again, clutching at straws. "she witnessed you and Moreschi talking often in IRC and was a participant in the chats" LOL porkie pies. --Nitnalof (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

" Last night he was ranting about his ban and I picked up this interchange regarding you" So, what you are saying now is that you weren't on IRC, but you had a friend that not only was on IRC but was sending you everything I was saying on IRC. Right? And that makes it appropriate behavior and not stalking how? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you've just admitted you have access to all the IRC logs you like, plus personal e-mails that were leaked.--Nitnalof (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do have access. They are on Wikipedia Review. ArbCom knows I have access because there was an email back and forth about me being compared to a pedophile by one of the Arbitrators in the leaks. Did you not read the top of this section where I mentioned that? And WR has the IRC logs just as the GNAA website does. They've been available since the beginning of the year. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So it's OK when you do it? --Nitnalof (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My statement above was that ArbCom had verification from you that you were watching my actions and following me. This was in addition to you being connected to my being outed. People were banned for less, yet you received no penalty even when you made it rather clear that you were acting inappropriately. I never followed your contribs, went between Wikis, etc., let alone recorded you on IRC, or anything else. I have not posted up your personal information nor have I revealed your identity. I don't even know your name, yet you shared private details about my personal life to many people in a harassment campaign. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes you did follow my contribs, quite obviously. You forum-shopped and canvassed against me. I never "outed" you. I've not published your personal information. --Nitnalof (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiple people said you were sending emails with my information on it. Furthermore, I never once followed your contribs. Any articles we ever met at were articles I edited before you came to start a fight. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "multiple people" I've "talked to" on IRC again. "I never once followed your contribs". The history of "Persian Empire" tells a different story, for one thing. --Nitnalof (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"went between Wikis". The only reason I'm here is because you mentioned my name. I've already told you that.--Nitnalof (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)