Post by blissyu2 on Jul 15, 2008 5:43:13 GMT -5
I will dumb down my ban here a bit for easy reading.
I was banned for a content dispute about Port Arthur massacre, because I was an eye witness and I personally know what really happened, while none of the people who disagreed actually were even in the same state. The main person advocating for my ban was Longhair, who was made an administrator on the basis of that attack.
Now, let's look at how Wikipedia has justified things since then:
One thing that I find amusing is that in one breath my ban was justified because I ran Wikipedia Review and yet in the same breath they refuse to acknowledge in the Wikipedia Review article that I ever ran it.
How can you get the worst of both worlds like that?
Wikipedia further justifies it by making up stories of me using sock puppets. In spite of my never doing it, they insist that it is constant. They ban all and sundry people who had nothing to do with me so as to justify it.
They have never explained what my secret agenda was for posting stuff about Port Arthur massacre that they disagree with. Why would I do it? I have been doing it since before the attacks happened. Robert Edwards is dead. Martin Bryant is in jail and I know that he was involved and should be in jail. So why bother saying anything? There is no benefit to me at all, outwardly.
The only benefit to me is that it is the truth. Nobody would do it for this long if it wasn't the truth. There can be no ulterior motive.
At the very minimum, people with any common sense would know that I believe with my whole heart that what I am saying is the truth. They can then think up some reason why I might have been confused. I have never heard any suggestion as to how I got so mixed up.
I was banned for a content dispute about Port Arthur massacre, because I was an eye witness and I personally know what really happened, while none of the people who disagreed actually were even in the same state. The main person advocating for my ban was Longhair, who was made an administrator on the basis of that attack.
Now, let's look at how Wikipedia has justified things since then:
- Longhair forgave me, yet the ban was reinstated.
- Longhair admitted that I was a reformed user during my 2nd incarnation as Zordrac, yet a fresh ban was given.
- Other than having been banned previously, the ban was because I had protested the ban of Poetlister. That ban was overturned, yet my ban remained.
- I even conceded publicly that she had used sock puppets, that I agreed with the evidence presented, but my ban was not overturned.
- After serving my year long ban (which by then had actually been 2 years) I was banned almost immediately by SlimVirgin, in spite of her being involved in the Poetlister issue. That ban was never explained.
- The ban by SlimVirgin was interpreted to be because I was running an attack site, that being Wikipedia Review, justified by the then rule against attack sites (a rule that no longer exists).
- After the attack site rule was altered, my ban was not overturned.
- After Somey hacked my account and I stopped running the site, my ban was not overturned.
- SlimVirgin herself said that she would overturn the ban, but it is not allowed to happen.
- When I wrote to the unblock list to protest the ban, to ask for it to be investigated, Yamla made the ban permanent and forbade anyone from considering overturning it, including SlimVirgin.
- The ban, at least the one that exists now, had nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee, who gave me a 1 year ban for alleged legal threats, legal threats that did not actually exist, yet they say that for it to be considered, it must go through the Arbitration Committee.
One thing that I find amusing is that in one breath my ban was justified because I ran Wikipedia Review and yet in the same breath they refuse to acknowledge in the Wikipedia Review article that I ever ran it.
How can you get the worst of both worlds like that?
Wikipedia further justifies it by making up stories of me using sock puppets. In spite of my never doing it, they insist that it is constant. They ban all and sundry people who had nothing to do with me so as to justify it.
They have never explained what my secret agenda was for posting stuff about Port Arthur massacre that they disagree with. Why would I do it? I have been doing it since before the attacks happened. Robert Edwards is dead. Martin Bryant is in jail and I know that he was involved and should be in jail. So why bother saying anything? There is no benefit to me at all, outwardly.
The only benefit to me is that it is the truth. Nobody would do it for this long if it wasn't the truth. There can be no ulterior motive.
At the very minimum, people with any common sense would know that I believe with my whole heart that what I am saying is the truth. They can then think up some reason why I might have been confused. I have never heard any suggestion as to how I got so mixed up.
