Almost all in the list appear on WP:BANNED. Some are only indef blocked.

If you are not listed, then I am sorry. I went through the entire username list and then through the banned list on Wikipedia. Looch/JB196 should be on this forum under some name or another since he was an early member of wikiabuse.com

Daniel Brandt isn't on here since he's no longer banned. And people are being very nice to him; for instance, someone makes a rogue copy of his bio and he reports it and it quickly is deleted.

I can spell Herschelkrustofsky without looking.

I'm not going to vote myself on this one.

Herschel Schmoekel Pinkus Yerucham Krustofski

I don't know all the stories. But I'd love to hear them. Many of those names I know from WR as for the most part rather reasonable types to varying degrees. A couple of them I only know from passing references. Would Wikitruth or some site provide a encapsulated version of their bannings?

As usual, Wikipediots and Wikipoliticos alike abuse not just the English language but even their own looney language far too Xtravagantly to make this poll sensible. Just for instance, an account that is repeatedly described as "banned" by SlimVirgin, Jayjg, et alia, and hence made subject to all manner of purely personal and policy-violating persecution by them, may not appear on WP:LOBU and may be described in various other manners by various other Wikipundits.

Once again, any attempt to use Wikipediot categories in a discussion renders rational discourse utterly futile.

Jonny

Thanks. I see that LSS also pointed to that link above. It does help with one or two of the ones I didn't know about, although the information seems pretty one sided.

I know the pun is too obvious but are people on that list known to have been LOBUttomized?

I also note that Greg (who I believe is Wikipedia Review) is the only Candidate to experience Jimmy Wales' own ban hammer. I guess the proposition "if anybody is gonna make money around here it's gonna be me" is a notion close to the heart of the Sole Flounder .

I tried Wikitruth search on several but did not find articles.

GBG: Be creative with your searches. As an example: Wikitruth's page about uhm..Snopakegate (I guess that's the general name for it) doesn't specifically name me (as far as I can remember).

The cruelest thing is that a few of those on the list were banned partly or fully using off-wiki communications. I can't even look at diffs to see the full evidence and make up my own mind.

There's also that Revert, Block, Ignore rule that makes evidence gathering even more difficult.

The Joy: I second that completely.

I think blissey2u's ban was quite...what the fuck, honestly. No, SlimVirgin, I don't get "for obvious reasons" means; his arbitration case said a yearlong ban, and a yearlong ban only.

But I think Poetlister is probably the most tragic, because she had been accused of sockpuppetry before, unblocked, accused again, and banned on the third accusation.

I would never vote on this ballot without my own name on it. Sorry doesn't feed the bulldog, Lamont.

I am deeply offended.

Greg

P.S. (I'm not really deeply offended. Just a wee bit.)

Blissyu2 was banned some time ago as a newbie, back when he really didn't understand how the Wiki system worked. He was overly aggressive and combative, so in that sense, perhaps a ban was in order, but the length that they ended up pushing for was a little, um, what the fuck. Basically, his Arbcom case amounted to a lynch mob and a huge violation of WP:BITE. Eventually, he returned, but before the ban had "officially" expired, and some of the top trannies sniffed him out and saw to it that he would never be welcomed on-wiki, even after aeons had passed.

Blu Aardvark was banned after a series of confrontations with several high-ranking administrators. He, too, overstepped the bounds of civility, and was also aggressive and combative, but the reason for this was because those he was in dispute with had also overstepped the bounds of civility and engaged in aggressive and combative actions. Eventually, he devolved to sockpuppeting vandalism, which was used to justify his ban later on, but that doesn't change the fact that the original ban was shit.

Herschelkrustofsky was banned for having a point of view opposite to that of SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and friends. They used a bullshit Arbcom ruling to silence certain points of view (entirely contrary to the spirit and letter of NPOV), and eventually were able to haul off his ass and ban him.

I'm not familiar with Jonny Cache's ban.

Karmafist was a good-faith editor with largely controversial viewpoints. His ban, if I recall correctly, was based largely on hidden evidence, either checkusers, off-wiki campaigning, or "well-honed linguistic skills". I can't really judge his ban, though, because so much of it occurred in the BackRoom.

Lir was banned for being aggressive and incivil at a time when there were no policies against being aggressive and incivil. It has been extended indefinitely due to claims of sockpuppetry, but by their very nature, claims of sockpuppetry are unprovable except for in the BackRoom.

I'm not familiar with Looch's ban.

nathanr's ban was a bit, eh, what the fuck. They hauled his ass off to the star chamber. It was a fair and just ban, because they say it was a fair and just ban, and nobody dares question the arbcom. But seriously, that was a bit fucked up. It all occurred through opaque methods, and whether or not the ban is fair or even valid isn't clear.

Poetlister's ban was based entirely on BackRoom evidence, and it isn't possible to accurately analyze the case. It does strike me as unfair, given the evidence that had been compiled in Poetlister's favor on numerous occasions, but I can't really determine what happened because Wikipedia's very model ensured that nobody could determine what happened. All we know is that it is so because ArbCom said it is so, and only a fool, or a troll, questions the ArbCom.

Rootology's ban strikes me as semi-reasonable, given the personal attacks he launched, but really, when you look at it, all of Rootology's alleged misdeeds were off-site. There was more evidence to convict MONGO of acting in bad faith, but ED had become unpopular in wikiland, and they wanted to make an example of someone, anyone. They also wanted to get an attack site psuedo-policy in writing that could be used to quietly remove links to hated webpages.

Selina's ban struck me as a bit WP:BITE'ish, but, as with Blu and Blissy, she had a tendency to being overly confrontational and incivil.

Sgrayban was banned because he and Adam Carr are/were professional rivals, and Adam Carr pulled the right strings to get him kicked off-wiki. His ban, as with that of Herschelkrustofsky, was a ban to enforce a POV.

I'm not familiar with WordBomb's ban.

I suppose it's worth noting that part of the reasons for Selina'a and Blissyu2's bans were their protests at my first block.

ArbCom never said so. There's never been any RfAr against her. Her first ban was overturned by ArbCom member Charles Matthews with the agreement of ex-member David Gerard (who unlike us are in the Back Room). What evidence do they have now that they didn't have then?

Silly me, confusing "CheckUser" with "ArbCom". Point noted.

Not much to it, really - User:WordBomb was a one-day SPA who was banned by User:SlimVirgin for posting the identity of User:Mantanmoreland on Wikipedia, and afterwards creating numerous other accounts to publicly oppose both of the aforementioned users on various articles and talk pages.

So it's not like Mr. WordBomb had a significant amount of reputational capital built up in Wikipedia. His being banned was really no big deal, not then and not now, so the "fairness" of it is of little significance to the issue. But at least a few people now know about Mantanmoreland (and also User:Doright and his, shall we say, inherent "conflict of interest."

(Most of them also know about WordBomb's inherent conflict of interest too, of course, but obviously WordBomb isn't the one being protected by the admins.)

X 37 Votes Fairness And Accuracy For All

Most unfair ban EVER !

Actually, I'm not banned — at least not LOBUTTomized — I am merely drawn & ¼ed that way.

Here is the entire wrambling wreckord of the Secret Evidence Kangaroo Court Lynch Mob that put an indefinite block on my account:

AN/I IncidentArchive134 User:Jon_Awbrey_project_spam

But Wikipediots have the same lack of concern for the facts in these matters as they do in every other.

Apparently, I "exhausted the patients of the community" of umpteen gadshillion Wikipediots ...

Based on the ramblin' sample of Ten Klansman who showed up on The Sixth of September 2006 ...

Remember, Remember, The Sixth of September ...

Jonny

Well, technically speaking Blissyu2 was already banned. However, the reason that Wiki-zealots saw fit to "out" him was, in part, due to his protests at that block, so your point is still perfectly valid.

(Actually, that's an interesting aside. User:Rebecca - who considered it stalking of a misogynist nature for Blu Aardvark and Sgrayban to google her net identity and discover her IRL identity - saw nothing wrong with hunting for old usenet posts by Zordrac to identify him and to draw and quarter him by. But that's getting a bit off-topic...)

I'll put them in order, and my thoughts on them (that I know of):

Blissyu2 (me) - the initial ban was basically for being the subject of abuse. It was forgiven by Longhair, and allowed to create a new account as Zordrac. Zordrac was banned officially as a "sock puppet", restarting the initial dubious 1 year ban. This ban had some sort of merit, if you accept the initial ban (which is highly dubious), and if you accept that being forgiven by the person who originally got you banned counts as evading a ban. The indefinite ban by SlimVirgin had no merit or support by anyone in the community, and was ridiculous to say the least. Most people on Wikipedia would agree that I was a good user, and that any concerns about my use as Internodeuser can now be safely described as newbiedom. Realistically, I was banned for returning from retirement to support Poetlister.

Blu Aardvark - this was a ridiculous ban, initially in relation to his protesting other bans on MSK and myself, then later because he was (then) running Wikipedia Review (Selina now runs it), then forgiven, then unforgiven, then he got sick of it and made sock puppets. Similarly with my ban, Blu Aardvark probably deserved to be blocked for sock puppeting, but the original reasons for the ban was nonsense, as was the extension to indefinite. Blu Aardvark was a very good user.

Herschelkrustofsky - this was purely by SlimVirgin as a means to win an argument, and was a disgusting, yet somehow typical, means for SlimVirgin to get away with murder. It went through all possibly processes. I personally don't agree with LaRouche either, but that's no reason to get rid of HK.

Jonny Cache - don't know anything about it.

Karmafist - Karmafist was an administrator, who was one of the few admins that went out of his way to help newbies. He came to Wikipedia Review as one of the first (the first?) to seriously support it (technically Snowspinner, Thebainer and Tony Sidaway supported it, but not really). He was then de-sysopped mainly on the basis of his comments here to support it (which set a precedent) and later was banned using dubious accusations of sock puppetry. It was a disgusting waste of one of the best admins ever to go to Wikipedia.

Lir - this was well before my time, so I can't directly comment, but it seemed to me like Lir was causing trouble everywhere he went, and basically expected to get banned, but dared them to do it. Similar to the likes of Wik, it was probably reasonable to ban Lir, but that doesn't mean he was a terrible user.

Looch/JB196 - I don't really know much about this case.

nathanr - From what I can tell, Nathanr was going swimmingly well until he posted on Wikipedia Review, at which time some people tried to find reasons to get rid of him. He was officially banned for an undisclosed e-mail that he allegedly sent to someone, and this was oversighted to protect people from being outed. It sounds very dubious to say the least. Nathanr insists that it had nothing to do with Wikipedia Review, but I think it did. However, nowadays Wikipedia admits that you get banned for posting here, so in light of that it was probably fair enough. Except that that policy is awful, and it didn't exist then!

Poetlister - I voted for this one as the most unfair. Was Poetlister running socks? Well, I never personally chatted to RachelBrown or Newport or Taxwoman, although everything that I could see suggested that they were real people. However, I was never 100% convinced of this, as I never talked to any of them on the phone, and only ever talked to Poetlister on e-mail and chats. Hence there is a chance that they were the same person. But the photographs that they uploaded were definitely real people, not models etc, and hence they really were Poetlister's friends. That much is certain. Whether her friends ever really edited Wikipedia is another matter entirely. Taxwoman's identity was so different to the others that it is hard to imagine that they were the same person - unless Poetlister is secretly in to BDSM? She never suggested anything to me, so I doubt it. But the big point of this is that Poetlister was banned because she made a complaint about SlimVirgin, and had gone through mediation. That was really disgusting, and again is typical of SV. SlimVirgin wanted to win her argument about Lists of Jews, and with this ban she won. As for the later ban of Runcorn, as a sock puppet of Poetlister (not the other way round), the fact that Runcorn was created the day after Poetlister was first banned is very suspicious to me, and suggests that Poetlister may have created the account to evade her ban. I find it very odd (and irritating) that people suggest that Poetlister was a sock puppet of Runcorn when Poetlister was created first. I also find it odd that nobody mentions the account creation date, yet me, who supposedly am defending Poetlister, am the one who keeps trying to remind people of this. I didn't deeply look through Runcorn's edit, but Runcorn was a very anonymous, good admin and good user, who realistically could have been anyone. There is nothing to tie him to Poetlister, or to anyone else. And if Poetlister was trying to evade a ban, making a male account would be the perfect way to do it. Also Poetlister was a good enough user that she should have been made an admin a long time ago, so the idea that she might make an account with the idea to get them up to admin, and succeed, is quite realistic.

But the big problem with this is that even if they were all the same person, there is still nothing against Wikipedia policy in doing that. Perhaps it was one account to create one type of articles, one account to create another, and then Runcorn to try to get to admin level, avoiding the tarring and feathering of the others. I for one think that that is quite reasonable to do that kind of thing.

The worst that should have happened is for Poetlister to be forced to say that they were her aliases, and perhaps to have all but one banned. If Poetlister is good enough to become an admin, she should have retained that level.

And of course, beyond all of that, there is no definitive reason to prove that they were sock puppets, let alone abusive ones.

Rootology - I don't know a lot about this one, other than that it was in relation to the conduct of MONGO. MONGO didn't get banned, yet Rootology did. Some solace is that MONGO later got de-sysopped, but it is still quite terrible that this happened. MONGO seemed to be the one in the wrong.

Selina - Selina violated 3RR regularly, edit warred non-stop and constantly challenged admins. She warranted regular 24 hour blocks, and really never made any serious attempts to get along with people. While I do not agree that multiple 24 hour blocks necessitates a permanent ban, I do agree that the 24 hour blocks were warranted. Officially of course Selina was not banned permanently until she made a new account, to avoid the tarring and feathering on her MSK account in relation to her complaints of Poetlister's ban and others, and then was banned for sock puppetting. As far as I am aware, this sock puppet claim was true, although I don't know for certain. Selina was a pretty good user, and really banning her was saying to everyone that criticism is not acceptable.

Sgrayban - was banned in relation to the Cuba article, something so outrageous that it appeared in print as a terrible article. To ban him for this was stupendously bad.

WordBomb - I don't know anything about this case.

So in order, perhaps, from most unfair to least unfair, is like so:

1. Poetlister
2. Karmafist
3. Rootology
4. Hershelkrustofsky
5. Sgrayban
6. Nathanr
7. Blissyu2 (me) - though the perm ban was probably number 3, worse than Rootology's.
8. Blu Aardvark
9. Mistress Selina Kyle
10. Lir

As I said, I can't comment on the others.

lol Lir. Why aren't Platus satire and Willy on Wheels up there, too?

I'd like to see User:Wikipedia_is_Communism up there, myself. I thought he made a pretty good point, and all he did was blank a few hundred articles, right?

Why assume Poetlister was Runcorn? Their editing patterns and writing styles are screamingly different. Actually, Runcorn's largest field of edits seems to have been footballers, setting up and adding {{Lithuania-footy-bio-stub}} type stubs. If Runcorn was indeed a sockpuppet, isn't it more likely that he's Newport (both British towns, as someone noted)?

And after Poetlister's unblock, so far as I can see she never edited any of the same articles as Runcorn, except for one RfA, so even if he was her sockpuppet there was no ground for an indefinite block. I can find more than on admin who, going by editing patterns, is a much better bet as a Poetlister sock.

You're the only one wikipdia banned that deserved it..YOU!

blissy: Really, it had nothing to do with Wikipedia Review beyond Sceptre also being a user here (which is only by mere coincedence). WR's got absolutely nothing to do with it (as far as I know and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about my own block), so just trust me on this one, okay?

Cyde was looking for reasons to 'get rid of me' since who knows when (and who knows why - I'm not a threat to anyone unless provoked - I'm only an asshole if given a reason), and he and Sceptre conspired to find any reason necessary to block me (and that reason being an e-mail outside of Wikipedia, which is completely outside of blocking policy). Then, it turned into a "community block" which nobody dared challenge ("nobody" being a handful of users who couldn't do anything about it even if they tried, though I appreciate their efforts). It just snowballed and snowballed into "most Wikipedians believing what they were told without having the brains to ask questions", then a while later, some defamation by other users (one edit by MichaelLinnear [an ED troll] which was oversighted and the other by Moreschi [on my CheckUser case] which wasn't, despite my repeated requests to ArbCom to remove it)

Basically, it boiled down to me encroaching on Sceptre's territory, that "territory" being another user - and that user who was acting like a mini version of Phaedriel, using completely inappropriate terms of endearment which gave people (well, "people" being me) the wrong idea.

If m:Right to Vanish actually meant anything anymore, I'd insist on it.

Private e-mails which conveniently they can't disclose publicly.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...e/Nathanrdotcom

Lots of people are there who don't belong.

CJ King belongs, asking for Nathan to be unblocked.

Ryūlóng probably belongs because he was sysop, but I'm not sure if he's supposed to leave things to checkusers.

Milto LOL pia came because he saw the article about nathan on ED. He had a long conversation back and forth.

MichaelLinnear came from ED, too, but only made one comment. It was an odd one, too.

Moreschi belongs, doing a checkuser

Will/Sceptre gives some comment on CJ King. I don't know if he belongs, but he is just butting in.

Mackensen belongs for doing checkuser.

That proves my point: Virtually anyone who came to my defense was immediately suspected of being my sockpuppet - as if to say "Nathan has no real friends on Wikipedia - all the friends he has are those he makes up himself" - which is obviously completely untrue. They don't have to say that, it's their attitude whenever someone shows up to defend me - "quick! block it! it's Nathan!" etc.

The ArbCom case was a farce from the beginning - "provide all proof including e-mails" - I did that, sent copies of all e-mails sent to Jimbo, etc etc. Still blocked with backroom evidence. Why did they even bother pretending that I actually have a snowball's chance in hell of being unblocked anyway, they seemed to be overwhelmingly against me from the start. They should've just kept me blocked instead of pretending I had a chance to defend myself and life goes on. Why bother with the psychological game of false hope?

I think the general consensus in Wikipedia-town is that I'm a raving loon - I'm not even half as crazy as they paint me...maybe 1/3rd of that (everyone's a little bit crazy). Wikipedia paints me as a loon and ED paints me as a predator/"pedo" who got exactly what was coming to him..neither of them are right.

For the longest time, they were wasting loads of time and effort to silence me and manufacture "evidence" when I'm not even the slightest "threat" to Wikipedia - it's simply wasted time on their part. What can I do from here that threatens Wikipedia even a little? Exactly nothing except for words and maybe that's what they fear the most.

With regards to Sceptre's comment, I guess he just knows from interacting with me and CJ King that we're not the same person - I don't consider that "butting in" and I don't have a problem with it (though I asked him to remove one sentence of his comment which was completely wrong).

(As an aside, I just noticed the new theme, which Somey just switched on - excellent work, though I prefer blue myself ;-)

I was banned for putting links to http://wiqipedia.org the fake wikipedia into a few articles.

A joke? It depends on why that had happened. That might have actually been quite a reasonable ban.