Apparently back in 2008, I had some long email conversation with an Arbcom named FT2 - I kept asking for some specific reason that I was banned, like what did I do? Can I at least have a reason?
I was banned without any kind of arbitration process as Wikipedia uses nowadays (this drama was way back in 2001-2002, before the arbcom), so I asked why my case could not go through the same process as others? A public process. He tried to claim that his email conversation with me WAS the arbitration process, and I kept asking well ok what is the evidence to justify a reason to ban me. Where is the discussion? Where are the facts?
His emails were very long and boring and full of words (mostly bullshitting me with this idea that the email exchange was the arbcom process), but ultimately he only linked one specific thing, which occurred 6 years after I was originally banned. I apparently made an unban request, and specifically drew attention to the fact that I had been expected to follow a bunch of unofficial "rules", with no clear information on what the rules even are or when I broke them, and meanwhile anytime an arbitrator or bureaucrat would break those same rules, they would then cite the rule "Ignore All Rules!" I mean, that sounds a bit much - right?
So I wrote in my unban request, "My ban... has nothing to do with whether or not I am actively contributing... this ultimately has everything to do with the fact that I have complained about the way some admins treat the common users -- in other words, this ban was politically motivated. Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that I am here causing trouble and making personal attacks, while someone like User:Calton is clearly doing just that, and yet he is never sanctioned for his overtly hostile behavior; meanwhile, whom exactly have I made a personal attack against? As far as I can tell, absolutely nobody. All I want to do is edit the Wikipedia like any other user, but it seems some users are more equal than others. Any mis-step we make is used as justification for a ban, while everytime they do something wrong they can quote "Ignore All Rules". --Sheer Hypocrisy--"
All of that was ignored and the request was denied, "We're here to write an encyclopedia. You're evidently not."
I mean, ok, but where is the evidence of that? The one and only thing that FT2 finally managed to link after 20-30 back and forth emails, was this, "WELL OK I'LL JUST CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT DUMBASSES, YOU CAN'T STOP ME LOL! You are the ones who wanted me to use this account where you could see me, now you can't; your loss! Lol, fucking retard wannabe dictators."
I mean, I'm sorry, but after being banned for 6 years, without any reason, I'm so sorry that I called the administrators of Wikipedia stupid - but they do seem a little dumb. Regardless, it's their choice. They can either have someone edit on an identifiable account, or I can use a VPN and proxies to vandalize the site whenever I'm bored. Nowadays I don't really care if they unban me, and I'm quite confident that I can contribute a lot to their encyclopedia, so it's entirely their loss.
This is a response another historian wrote me back in 2008, regarding the FT2 emails, "Any email discussions should not be admissible based on the simple logic that they are unviewable by others in the RfA. This "trolling" allegation is bad since it has become a substitute for a good argument. However, there is very little I can do about it. I am actually having second thoughts about contributing to Wikipedia myself. It seems there are a lot of the fundamentals wrong that preclude effective contribution. I'm sure you have seen others say this. Given that there is no editorial authority or general editorship over articles, and most are in perpetual revision, the Wikipedia has already failed as a reference work. It's probably better to work on another project, academic or otherwise."
==========
I think it says a lot that they can't identify an actual reason for the original ban. I think it was because I disagreed with Larry Sanger, as he was trying to define "anarchism" in a convoluted way, intended to make it seem that "true" anarchism is just libertarian capitalism (absolutely absurd, if you've ever talked to anarchists, or read anarchist literature). I was banned shortly after running into Larry.
So I mean, great, they've banned me for the past 20 years. It hasn't done anything at all to stop me from editing, all it's done is ensure that I have little desire to be constructive and they can't tell which account I'm using. I do derive some amusement in knowing how many other people have been accused of being me, harassed and even banned. It's done nothing to improve the site, but I'm fine with that.
I think I lucked out, it would have sucked to spend years slaving away editing a website for a group of narcissists and their orbiters. None of the wiki people seem very happy, and they waste hours and days and years edit warring and squabbling over trivial things. Getting banned allowed me to focus on more important things in life, and I can just enjoy Wikipedia as a place to troll endlessly, with the satisfaction of knowing that they made the choice to ban constructive editing.
Actually, I think I'll go vandalize Wikipedia right now.