User talk:Gnetwerker3/ARB

Initiated by Gnetwerker (talk · contribs) at 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• (I will attempt to inform the involved parties, assuming I am not blocked for merely filing this request.)

Confirmation that other steps in the dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk to other parties: I engaged in dialog with Jayjg and SlimVirgin on my talk page, to no effect. I emailed several other admins requesting help, and sent email to the unblock mailing list.
• Disengage for a while: I have left this for several weeks to allow myself to cool down and perhaps to allow Wikipedia admins to reconsider.

Statement by Gnetwerker

I would like to appeal the indefinite block of my account[1]. I propose that the block was non-consensus and out-of-process, was based on secret and/or erroneous "evidence", and that I was unfairly denied an opportunity to appeal the block as set forth in WP:APB and WP:DR. WP:BP states as a key policy that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure" (emphasis in original). There is no evidence that I have damaged Wikipedia or present any threat of doing so. This block is, in effect, a ban from Wikipedia per WP:BAN, but one instituted not by ARBCOM, and not as a result of a "serious case of user misconduct". Furthermore, this block is definitionally "controversial": blocking policy says: "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block". I have been a Wikipedia user since 2002, and have a long history of valid and uncontroversial edits to Wikipedia.

1. The indef block is personal and punitive, not protective of Wikipedia: The block is the culmination of a long-term campaign of harassment by admin User:SlimVirgin, recently abetted by User:Jayjg. This edit[2], by a user (tuttovenuto (talk · contribs)) that SlimVirgin, through a long, convoluted, incomplete, and incorrect series of connections, believes is me, seems to have kicked off the most recent round of harassment. There is, however, no reasonable claim of ongoing or persistent disruption to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin wraps a complaint in alleged stalking of another user[3], but concludes with the incivil comment that I "make very few edits to the encyclopedia", and "the signal to noise ratio therefore doesn't work in your favor". The user in question has made no complaint and shows no signs of being harassed (by me or anyone else) for a long, long time. The vendetta is SlimVirgin's, she is not protecting anyone else. Jayjg has made clear statements that I am to be denied the normal Wikipedia process (by saying "don't bother with protestations of innocence"). Jayjg's ultimate, indefinite block seems to be based on my protestations of innocence, rather than any specific Wikipedia process or policy.
2. The block is the culmination of misuses of admin tools: SlimVirgin has abused administrative tools more than once in this campaign, notably her ongoing maintainance of a hidden attack page (she will call it an "evidence" page), which she undeletes, edits, and deletes to shield it from scrutiny. An early version of this page, available from Wikipedia database dumps, contains errors, unbased speculation, and personal attacks. SlimVirgin first began to tar me with a "sockpuppet" label, by such tactics are assigning sockpuppets to me that either have no contributions at all[4] [5] (User:69.29.220.138 and User:GomiBushi), those avowedly by other editors[6] [7] (User:InfoSandwich and User:Ed Banky), and those who simply have made edits on her favored topics[8] (User:172.210.202.216). There is no evidence that any of these accounts are sockpuppets of my account and substantial evidence that they are not. I content that her accusations were made as an effort to create the appearance of a "sockpuppet problem" to harass and ultimately ban me. The root cause of this may be insufficient respect for her absolute administrative authority, associated with a misuse of my account by an unauthorized user, many months ago and not repeated.
3. The block is based on ambiguous, erroneous, and misinterpreted information: SlimVirgin states her case that user Tutovenuto is me here -- SlimVirgin claims to have an off-wiki email from an alleged suspected sockpuppet (blindvenetian (talk · contribs)) is from a similarly-named email address to another alleged sockpuppet, neither of which bear any relationship to pages I have edited, my writing style, or my IP address. Jayjg claims to have run a checkuser on this editor, but apparently without benefit of WP:RFCU, and without an obvious reason to do so, in apparent violation of checkuser policy. Further, it isn't obvious that the result of that checkuser in any way implications my account, as indicated by this, which in essence says "checkuser doesn't prove anything but I'm going to call it true anyway".
4. Protection of my user page is a deliberate attempt to prevent me from raising an appeal: SlimVirgin has also used a tactic on me that she frequently uses on others as well: protecting my user talk page to prevent my asking for help or pursuing an appeal per WP:APB (without any indication of abuse of that page), after removing my unblock request from my page. Is it appropriate for an admin to remove an unblock request in a case she is involved in? I would hope not. She has done this with User:Xosa, user:Xlorn, and others.

Above all, this block/ban is the result of two admins acting in their own interest, without review on WP:ANI, without review by ARBCOM, and generally without broader community involvement. It is punitive, rather than protective of Wikipedia, and it is an over-reaction based on largely non-existant or ambiguous evidence. ArbCom history is filled with cases involving users with behavior worse than even the unfounded accusations here, with these users allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. This block, without appropriate review, is an abuse of administrative power and process, and I urge it be reversed. -- Gnetwerker 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)