Difference between revisions of "User:PeterKa"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(revise)
(add IIO)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted editors? They have it down to a science. Bullies will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a trollocratic clique of senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI.
 
Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted editors? They have it down to a science. Bullies will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a trollocratic clique of senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI.
  
At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 33,000 edits and a clean record. (I'm "Kauffner" on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits this list].) I had been editing for eight years. It's not like one day I decided to go on a rule-breaking rampage. I kept doing my thing while old editors who had been my friends moved on, new editors with chips on their shoulders arrived, and Arbcom adjusted various policies. In June 2012, I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin, for "your [[diacritics]] crusade," as he put it. The rationale for the block was so thin that Jenks24, another admin who was a friend of mine, immediately unblocked me. But having friends in high places turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. This "wheel warring" episode unleashed a wave of indignation from the brotherhood of the admins. I was brought before ANI several times. Each time, I argued circles around Team Harassment and escaped sanction. After all, I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself, and this guideline conformed to higher-level Wikipedia policies. The reason Wikipedians fight over diacritics is because of an Arbcom decision in June 2012 in which a user named GoodDay was topic banned after he was harassed by pro-diacritic editors. Editors who see this decision as a vindication of bullying try to extend it broadly. We are not talking about people who have any particular interest in Vietnam or its diacritics.
+
At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 33,000 edits and a clean record. (I'm "Kauffner" on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits this list].) I had been editing for eight years. It's not like one day I decided to go on a rule-breaking rampage. I kept doing my thing while old editors who had been my friends moved on, new editors with chips on their shoulders arrived, and Arbcom adjusted various policies. An editor named In ictu oculi was obsessed with my case, spent a year looking through my editing history for people who might have grudges against me, and fashioned them into a team. In June 2012, I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin incited by IIO, for "your [[diacritics]] crusade," as he put it. The rationale for the block was so thin that Jenks24, another admin who was a friend of mine, immediately unblocked me. But having friends in high places turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. This "wheel warring" episode unleashed a wave of indignation from the brotherhood of the admins. I was brought before ANI several times. Each time, I argued circles around Team Harassment and escaped sanction. After all, I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself, and this guideline conformed to higher-level Wikipedia policies. The reason Wikipedians fight over diacritics is because of an Arbcom decision in June 2012 in which a user named GoodDay was topic banned after he was harassed by pro-diacritic editors. Editors who see this decision as a vindication of bullying try to extend it broadly. We are not talking about people who have any particular interest in Vietnam or its diacritics.
  
 
A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. One member started blanking articles that I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. The edit warring guideline classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism," so I don't see how what I did could be considered edit warring. Even if I was edit warring, it is most unusual for an admin to block a user without warning. The message explaining the block refers back to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. So I don't think it was primarily about edit warring, or even diacritics. Perhaps Ponyo was more interested in [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]].
 
A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. One member started blanking articles that I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. The edit warring guideline classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism," so I don't see how what I did could be considered edit warring. Even if I was edit warring, it is most unusual for an admin to block a user without warning. The message explaining the block refers back to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. So I don't think it was primarily about edit warring, or even diacritics. Perhaps Ponyo was more interested in [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]].
Line 7: Line 7:
 
After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To bring up the same set of complaints repeatedly is called "forum shopping." In fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the discussion which resulted in my being banned] consists almost entirely of references to previous discussions. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Most of the comments are just about copping a 'tude. as if they were some sort of inner circle of editors high above me. Yet I had about the same level of experience as the people in the discussion.
 
After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To bring up the same set of complaints repeatedly is called "forum shopping." In fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the discussion which resulted in my being banned] consists almost entirely of references to previous discussions. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Most of the comments are just about copping a 'tude. as if they were some sort of inner circle of editors high above me. Yet I had about the same level of experience as the people in the discussion.
  
There is one accusation in the discussion that may sound legit. It accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. But the claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. It was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.
+
There is one accusation in the discussion that may sound legit. It accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. But this claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. It was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.
  
 
As an ex-Wikipedian, editors are now free to post personal attacks against me. They even give out my real name, supposedly a big no-no under WP:OUTING. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and removed my most effective arguments.
 
As an ex-Wikipedian, editors are now free to post personal attacks against me. They even give out my real name, supposedly a big no-no under WP:OUTING. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and removed my most effective arguments.

Revision as of 02:55, 18 July 2014

Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted editors? They have it down to a science. Bullies will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a trollocratic clique of senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI.

At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 33,000 edits and a clean record. (I'm "Kauffner" on this list.) I had been editing for eight years. It's not like one day I decided to go on a rule-breaking rampage. I kept doing my thing while old editors who had been my friends moved on, new editors with chips on their shoulders arrived, and Arbcom adjusted various policies. An editor named In ictu oculi was obsessed with my case, spent a year looking through my editing history for people who might have grudges against me, and fashioned them into a team. In June 2012, I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin incited by IIO, for "your diacritics crusade," as he put it. The rationale for the block was so thin that Jenks24, another admin who was a friend of mine, immediately unblocked me. But having friends in high places turned out to be more trouble than it was worth. This "wheel warring" episode unleashed a wave of indignation from the brotherhood of the admins. I was brought before ANI several times. Each time, I argued circles around Team Harassment and escaped sanction. After all, I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself, and this guideline conformed to higher-level Wikipedia policies. The reason Wikipedians fight over diacritics is because of an Arbcom decision in June 2012 in which a user named GoodDay was topic banned after he was harassed by pro-diacritic editors. Editors who see this decision as a vindication of bullying try to extend it broadly. We are not talking about people who have any particular interest in Vietnam or its diacritics.

A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. One member started blanking articles that I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. The edit warring guideline classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism," so I don't see how what I did could be considered edit warring. Even if I was edit warring, it is most unusual for an admin to block a user without warning. The message explaining the block refers back to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. So I don't think it was primarily about edit warring, or even diacritics. Perhaps Ponyo was more interested in this essay.

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To bring up the same set of complaints repeatedly is called "forum shopping." In fact, the discussion which resulted in my being banned consists almost entirely of references to previous discussions. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Most of the comments are just about copping a 'tude. as if they were some sort of inner circle of editors high above me. Yet I had about the same level of experience as the people in the discussion.

There is one accusation in the discussion that may sound legit. It accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. But this claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. It was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.

As an ex-Wikipedian, editors are now free to post personal attacks against me. They even give out my real name, supposedly a big no-no under WP:OUTING. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and removed my most effective arguments.

See also

What I have written