Global ban from Wikimedia Foundation sites and events

email received today 7:02 AM

Dear Mr. Johansen (User:Meco),

This communication is to notify you that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has globally banned you from Wikimedia Foundation websites and platforms (including but not limited to any site listed at www.wikimedia.org, mailing lists hosted by WMF, WMF Labs, and the Wikimedia blog) as well as any in-person events sponsored or funded by the WMF. You accordingly may not participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists without permission. This ban is placed against you, not against a particular username.  It applies to any alternate accounts that you may control and any accounts you may create in the future. Furthermore, you may not participate as an anonymous user (“as an IP user”).

We are taking this action because of a concern for the safety of our users and the integrity of the projects based upon a history of legal concerns as well as violations of our Terms of Use.This action is permanent and non-appealable.

Sincerely,

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation

possibly not in response to the following email which I attempted to post to the mailing list wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org March 22nd but which did not make it past moderation:

UPDATE MARCH 31, 2015

  • A very interesting discussion finally got underway at Wikimedia Commons. It’s the same discussion thread as I have linked to above only subsequent to that version of the page: link
  • Also, the link in other documents to my 2000-2001 criminal trial has now been restored, and the image which I had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be inspected on page 184 of that document. Apparently, someone logged into my Scribd account on March 23 and deleted that document only (out of more than 300 of my uploads there). Scribd Support has now restored the pdf file. The file was repeatedly deleted at Scribd. Finally, I received a response from the person who has written their terms of use letting me know that Scribd had in fact deleted the file as it involved minors. I asked where in their terms this is mentioned, repeatedly, but got no answer. He also claimed that they had notified me of this. I have not received any such notification. I also wonder why Scribd initially responded that the file had been deleted by myself.
Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Global ban from Wikimedia Foundation sites and events

  1. So do I get this right?

    1) You say you have been banned for 10, ten!, years by a consensus decision by all the (50-60 or so?) administrators at the Norwegian Wikipedia. A unanimous community ban, in other words.

    2) Despite your ban you were allowed to continue to edit the English Wikipedia, only resulting in your permanent ban from that project as well for new, serious transgressions on that project. People aren’t permanently banned from the English Wikipedia (speaking as an administrator there myself) without good reasons. Even editors with a very problematic history are seldom banned for more than a year.

    3) And then you were banned by Wikimedia Commons, again for new serious transgressions on that project rather than your, by now revealing, history of bans from other projects.

    4) And then you were banned from around 300 other Wikimedia projects by the Wikimedia Foundation in the US, as one of only a handful of people worldwide(!) who have been banned in this way, always for very serious violations of the terms of service (considering how many people who have been banned by individual projects, that type of ban is reserved only for the most notorious criminals on the world stage).

    That’s 4 — four — different proceedings by different projects that led to your permanent ban. And they were all wrong, every time???

    1. I claim they are.

      1) No, a majority decision is not the same thing as unanimous. And there was never given a reason. (I could mention that one of the community’s most respected administrators at that Norwegian Wikipedia, Silje, resigned in protest shortly following my ban there, citing the treatment of me.)

      2) Surely, you are aware of systemic biases and flaws affecting the operating model Wikipedia runs on? Surely, you are aware that there are various lobbies at work within the Wikipedia community that can, in given instances effect decisions that would not have been taken were it not for their concerted effort?

      2), 3) and 4) Since you refrain from discussing the actual “transgressions”, instead limiting yourself to acknowledging them and positing the premise that they must have been valid and convincing, there’s not so much more I can provide in answer to your comment.

      1. Ok, so I asked a Norwegian admin, and they said say you were permanently banned following a unanimous decision by every single administrator and that it was for the same reasons that you were eventually also banned by other projects and by the Wikimedia Foundation, and that’s why they were reluctant to disclose the reasons publicly. So you have now in fact been banned four times for similar reasons in four different proceedings and by different people. Surely, that’s a pretty strong indication that people object to your behavior?

      2. I’m surprised that this “Norwegian admin” so gladly disclosed to you (to post publicly) what they couldn’t divulge to me in private (you state the reason why they “wouldn’t” make it public). Apart from the fact that I cannot take this serious (for the lack of documentation and accountability) I should also point out that at the time of my banning from the Norwegian Wikipedia in February 2007, a) the information about my earlier activities for which I was banned on the English Wikipedia project in 2013 where not publicly known (that only happened subsequent to me writing about it later in 2007), and b) the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia did not, and to my knowledge still does not have the provisions for banning a user on those grounds.

  2. Meco, Wikipedia trenger ikke “provisions for banning a user on those grounds” (og du kan ikke forvente at ethvert nettsamfunn på forhånd skal ha tenkt på muligheten for en som deg, i motsetning til å håndtere situasjonen når du melder din ankomst). Administratorer kan “etter eget skjønn” blokkere brukere, som det heter i Wikipedia:Retningslinjer for blokkering. Det er nok at en administratorer mener at en blokkering er berettiget etter administratorens skjønn. Hvis noen av administratorene er uenige i denne skjønnsutøvelsen kan de redusere eller oppheve restriksjonen din. At det har gått over 10 år uten at dette skjedde bør være noe du tar til deg. (Selv brukeren Sju hav har fått en ny sjanse, men ikke du)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s