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”).
possibly not in response to the following email which I attempted to post to the mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org March 22nd but which did not make it past moderation:
Indef blocking and irregular procedure – on 3 projects
The first stems all the way back to 2006, and I will briefly mention it only but not plead on it here. Then I was blocked from the Norwegian NO-WP following closed proceedings where no reason was provided to me for this injunction. I’m mentioning this simply to avoid someone pulling this out of their back pocket in an attempt to show pattern of incalcitrant behavior.
The matter that I want to share with this list now, however, is my 2013 indef block at EN-WP and the would-be/apparently connected block a couple of days ago at Commons.
Briefly, the block in 2013 was given with reference to WP:Pedophilia, however, I still find it impossible to reconcile that guideline with the ruling by the EN-WP arbcom on my appeal, which stated:
You were blocked by an administrator who had read a blog on the
Wikipediocracy website. Of particular concern is an edit which you
made on the English Wikipedia which says “I operated an FTP site
containing boy child pornography in the 1990s”. As your statement
appears to breach site policies, the committee declines to unblock you.
Now on to the third block, at Commons.
The background was a media file which I uploaded, the blurred out image taken from a Norwegian court document from a criminal trial, a dpcument which was subsequently released to me (as the acquitted defendant). That is, the court document showed the images as unblurred photocopies of very low quality. Thus, I had blurred all relevant images and uploaded this document to scribd.com. This image was speedily deleted, first with a spurious rationale. My request for undeletion was then denied with a new rationale. Finding the rationale provided incoherent I filed a second request for undeletion which was again denied, basically with no attempt to clarify the issue simply restating the original reason given.
I’ll break for paragraph to continue with the, in my opinion, egregious part of procedures given to this matter at Commons. In connection with my second request I was warned at my user talk page that I was looking at a block “[n]ext time”. It was again unclear to me what this admin meant. I was incredulous to surmise they were basically saying “shut up now! or we’ll kick you out of here!” or if this remark was an equally uncalled for warning not to attempt a re-upload of the media file. After all, I was looking for a clarification of a rationale given by this admin, which should be a matter of course if we are to live by our rules and guidelines, not just make appearances of so doing. Well, I took my chances and went to the Village Pump for a principled discussion of the legal matter as well as its practical implications for the common media repository for all Wikimedia projects. After one initial sober and reasoned response, the case from EN-WP in 2013 was brought up with the accompanying implied assertion that mine was a history of outrageous non-constructive behavior and in a tone of enraged righteousness I was scorned for “lack of judgment, ethics and decency”. Concurrently a discussion at the Commons Administrators’ noticeboard had taken place. Saliently, a claim that I am a supporter of child pornography was apparently acceeded, unchecked, and the indef block was unanimously agreed to.
My opinion here is that this all (EN and Commons, the latter in particular) shows how detrimentally emotional bias causes level-headed procedure to be discarded in favor of a short-shrift, cursory procedure, and where principled, material discussion of the matter raised (by me) should have been conducted. Instead the entire focus was on my person, with flawed premises unchecked due to emotional irrationalty.
Child pornography and pedophilia are serious matters. They should be dealt with seriosuly and in earnest, not in a mood of emotional uproar.Halvor
all kommunikasjon til og fra denne personen vil være allment tilgjengelig
all communication to and from this person will be subject to public availabilitypublic password: meco1224
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.