I think it may be interesting to review how exactly a "community banning" takes place. In my own case, I was relatively unfamiliar with exactly when, where, and how my own community ban took shape, but I certainly recognized the de facto situation that I was community banned at some point.

Today, I believe I happened to stumble upon the moment in time where a community ban was asked for and implemented against me, in January 2007. Coincidentally, this ban motion was brought exactly one day before the Associated Press released a widely-distributed story about me, and two days before my appearance on the G4TV network.

Note that the case was brought forward (in response to a JzG notice) by User:Peter M Dodge, who abandoned Wikipedia about 6 weeks later. He was very weepy that Essjay had been unfairly treated by the Wikipedia community. Dodge's user page once stated that he suffered from clinical depression. His parting thought on Wikipedia?


Wow.

So, that's the person whose ethical bearing brought a community ban against me, but practically worshipped the work of someone who really did lie, bald-facedly, to a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.

Please note that Wikipedia Review.com was no longer conducting business after October 2006. Yet, this community ban discussion in January 2007 prominently cites "spammer" and "paying for articles" and "offer that sort of business" as salient reasons for the community ban! In other words, Wikipediots sought to ban someone for a ceased practice they didn't like three months prior.

So, in addition to the clinically-depressed-ban-launcher-who-quit-Wikipedia-over-Essjay, two other ban voters were JzG (perhaps one of the most active admins in creating hostility against Wikipedia Review, and who later in January 2008 tried his hand at hiding his act of plagiarism of Wikipedia Review's creative output from October 2006); and Sam Blacketer who later would publicly declare that he hopes Greg Kohs is as sick as a parrot, and whose business and clients were "unethical".

The remaining voters and commenters were Calton (who is still tag-teaming with JzG even today), Shadow1, Veinor, ReyBrujo, Chick Bowen, Patstuart ("I'm retiring from Wikipedia, as it's become a hindrance to me doing very very important things I ought need to in real life."), and Eagle 101.

That is, nine individuals over the course of fourteen hours determined that I would be "community banned" from the English Wikipedia, based largely on the assumption that I was still conducting paid-editing business services three months after operations had ceased.

Yet, a momentary question of the ethics of the Wikipedia paid-editing zone, the Reward Board, was unanimously shot down recently. In other words, Wikipedia Review could have set up a clandestine procedure with its clients to wait a day or two for Wikipedia Review to author a new page for them, then have the client create a new "pseudonymous" account and post their cash request for an article at the Reward Board, then Wikipedia Review could quickly swoop in with a quick pasted article and claim the reward -- all within the unanimous policy support of the Wikipedia community!

So, is everyone here comfortable with how Wikipedia Review was "community banned" from the English Wikipedia, in fourteen hours, by a clinically depressed Essjay fanatic and an admin who has hidden his plagiarism of Wikipedia Review and another who wished me to be "sick as a parrot"?

Sounds about right for the Wikipedia we know and loathe!

Two years ago, a "community ban" was nothing more than an ordinary indefinite block of a user by a single admin, where that block was not subsequently reversed by another admin.

That meant, as nearly as I could tell, that every outstanding indef block was automatically a "community ban." If you are trying to trace the convoluted, self-serving logic of how Wikipedia defines a "community ban" then you have to start from that point and go forward.

Good luck. I tried to point out back then that the concept of a "community ban" was somewhat flawed, but since I was "community banned," naturally I was unable to make my point.

Definitions on Wikipedia shift according to what the cabal decides is expedient. The Arbcom should ban the use of the term "community ban" because it's not defined adequately by procedure, and it is therefore defamatory. You should file a complaint with Arbcom.

Their is a community larger than the people you have met on Wikipedia that have not banned you.

I'm still trying to figure out if Giovanni33 is community banned indefinitely or ArbCom banned for one year. Does the ArbCom decision take precedent over the community's decision or vice versa?

No, they are concurrent. Giovanni33's ArbCom ban lasts one year, but he will still be community banned. I believe this will be nearly impossible to overturn - unlike many who are banned under more obscure conditions, Giovanni33 will be remembered by dozens if not hundreds of people. Worse, he will have a choice of either admitting to socking this last time around, or denying it, neither of which will help him.

When this specific issue came up in a couple of cases that I was workshopping (before I was elected as an arbitrator), I would typically propose language to clarify the interrelationship between the community remedy and the arbitration remedy, if no one else had already done so. Generally, the remedies are considered cumulative (i.e., the most severe is in effect) unless otherwise stated, but it is best for all concerned for the arbitration remedy to be express so as to eliminate any ambiguity.

More generally, at least as of when I was last active, there were disagreements among the administrator corps as to exactly what constituted a community ban and what degree of consensus was required either to implement or to overrule a ban. There was some precedent that a community ban effectively existed where not a single administrator was willing to unblock an indefblocked user, while others took the position that a community ban could be implemented by a substantial consensus on ANI (or formerly CSN), even though isolated dissenting views existed. In at least two cases, the arbitrators appealed to the community to refine the banning policy to resolve this disagreement. Failing that, I had hoped to propose some clarification in an arbitration decision when the appropriate case to address the issue came along, but as it turned out I never got the chance.

Yep. "Nobody willing to unblock" generally means, nobody around with the interest in the case, or the wiki-status, to take the shit for the unblock. Inasmuch as narcissistic admins who are reversed by other admins, tend to have elephant memories. And you WILL pay for getting between them and their lunch. Which is insolent newbies who have failed to kiss their rings.

For a really bad, obviously horrendously unfair block (admin X edit wars with Y, then finally indef blocks Y for some lame reason, blanks and protects all pages, then leaves on vacation), there occurs an interesting ritual. Assuming that banniated editor Y can figure out how to make contact with some sympathetic admin, that somebody might place a note somewhere:

"I might be willing to unblock Y, provided I don't hear more from admin X". Which means "I'm not committing to anything here, and if über-Admin X comes back at me by email with 'Don't you even think about it or I'll have your tattertots for lunch,' then I'm outa here." And if Admin X cools down enough, sometimes they signal their willingness not to take it personally, simply by refusing ever to deign to answer the would-be unblocker about why they won't unblock. So he or she might take a chance to override. Or not. Afterall, there's really no compelling reason to, and every reason not to.

The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority, so its alleged "decision" is meaningless, and Giovanni is under no obligation to obey it. He is entitled to do whatever he needs to do to evade the whim of an illegitimate body and its legions of enforcers.

The community's decision (which was made independently of the Arbitrary Committee's), on the other hand...

...is a whole separate group of thugs.