User:Dicklyon/Retrospective

Stuff that happened...

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#MarcusBritish personal attacks and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive312#Dicklyon requests clarification or lifting of restrictions.

When I (Dicklyon) complained about a user's personal attacks at AN/I, asking that they be stricken, I knew I risked WP:BOOMERANG accusations and examination of my own behavior, of course. And that wasn't pretty, but it was largely settled down when ANI-regular BMK stepped in and proposed an indef block of the both of us. The story of how and why that happened, and what he said about it afterward, may be illuminating.

Let's start in the middle, where an indef block is proposed by BMK. And finish up where he tells a distorted tale of what he had done, here. A lot of context is needed to understand what's so wrong in what he wrote retrospectively of his role in this "crapfest" as one editor called it:

I assessed the discussion which had already taken place and concluded that ... Dicklyon had violated his 2015 unblock conditions, which were still in effect, by making mass moves, an opinion which had previously been expressed by a number of people in the discussion which had already taken place, and that the indef block should be re-instated. (Proposal (A)) I did not invent that argument out of whole cloth, and Dicklyon himself admitted to the mass moves himself.

Let's look at these clauses in turn:

"assessed the discussion which had already taken place"

Here is the situation he "assessed":

• I had already gotten the personal attack removal that I had requested. MarcusBritish (MB) was about done ranting. I had suggested we move on.
• A block had been proposed on Marcus, and a few editors re-emphasized that, e.g. with "MB seems to be somebody who might benefit from a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV." and "I also support the call for a block. This is totally absurd. No one should get away with this level of incivility."
• Only Nyttend supported MB's contention that I had violated my 2015 unblock terms, claiming "block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present." (see side story of Nyttend elsewhere). But no evidence or credible allegations of large-scale controversial page moves had been presented. Note the consistent use of the term controversial by Nyttend, which becomes key later – I had stipulated that I had made large-scale page moves.
• Notice that nobody had asked for an indefinite block on either of either me or MB.

"violated his 2015 unblock conditions, which were still in effect"

• Incnis Mrsi had written "Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination."
• The admin who had unblocked me in 2015 and wrote the conditions of unblock had already written, before MB's proposed indef blocks: "MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)"
• Sure, MB claimed some kind of condition was still in effect, as he tried to boomerang me, but nobody bought that before BMK proposed the indef blocks. BMK (not an admin or otherwise specially qualified to judge) claimed his analysis was superior to that of the unblocking admin. He ginned this up as part of an excuse to propose blocking me.

"making mass moves"

• BMK originally charged me with making "controversial mass moves". His change to drop the "controversial" came in when evidence of controversy could not be found. He had not notified me of his proposal, and after I noticed and protested nearly 48 hours later, he started to say that "controversial" doesn't matter.
• Quite a few editors had been induced to support his block proposals, and/or a move ban for me, by then, on zero evidence and zero chance for a defense, but didn't really have the "controversial doesn't matter" concept to consider yet.
• BMK continued to press this "controversial doesn't matter" point aggressively, since the controversial claims all got explained away: [1], [2], [3], [4].

"opinion which had previously been expressed by a number of people in the discussion which had already taken place"

• Nobody but the biased editors MarcusBritish and Nyttend, as shown above, had given a nod to the idea that I had any kind of page-move ban in effect from 2015.

"did not invent that argument out of whole cloth"

• The "mass moves" without respect to controversial was BMK's idiosyncratic reading of an ambiguous message on my talk page that could not conceivably have been taken literally the way he says, as indicating that my last four years of hard work were something I was prohibited from doing. Nobody else went there.
• He claims "Dicklyon's apparently deliberate misreading of their unblock conditions -- which have been explained to him numerous times, by numerous editors, is an example of WP:IDHT behavior and the Big Lie, by which incessantly repeating a falsehood gives it greater credibility." – BMK's lie here is the exceptional interpretation he pushed, which was not "explained by numerous editors". And in linking the Big Lie there he's not just calling me a liar, but linking me to Nazi propaganda. Wow! How does he get away with such inflammatory behavior?

"Dicklyon himself admitted to the mass moves himself"

• My self "admissions" of mass moves myself were there, for sure. But not controversial as he claimed in his block proposal, which read "The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial."
• The explanation of why some were reverted was in terms of explaining why they were not controversial at that time. Randy Kryn clarified on the ones he was involved with, how that was not an admission of controversial mass moves.

In summary, in a situation that had settled down to where "a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV" or "an immediate block" of MB was called for, but the concept of an "indef block" had not been mentioned, BMK stirred up a huge mess that did nobody any good and did considerable harm to MB, to the community, and to me – even though I was acquitted of the charges after several editors changed their minds based on my defense. A few days later I was relieved of any lingering ban from 2015, through a discussion that was a continuing pain, though at least it gave several more editors a chance to change their minds and say so.