Changes

I am your basic refugee from Wikipedia's ideological warfare, in my case mostly concerning feminism and diacritics. The specific issues that led to my ban are discussed in [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]]. But I will present some larger lessons I learned here. In a series of cases I am familiar with, Wikipedia has resolved persistent conflict between liberal and conservative editors by banning conservatives. Judging from my case, this policy may apply even when the conflict is largely a result of the liberal editor being malicious and unreasonable, and the conservative editor is a top contributor. I was banned over an article I wrote about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. So retreating to an apolitical topic didn't work. I find it unlikely that so many high-ranking admins would take an interest in my activities at the same time on their own initiative. I don't think I was doing anything out of the ordinary at that time. At any rate, no one in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the banning discussion] claimed that I was. There was an admin who protected me earlier and later stopped editing. This may have been what triggered the offensive against me. I assume some admins got together off Wikipedia, worked out a strategy, and presented everyone else with a ''fait accompli.'' This Star Chamber procedure is the opposite of consensus, supposedly Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. The banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after significant public discussion at ANI or Arbcom.  

I am your basic refugee from Wikipedia's ideological warfare, in my case mostly concerning feminism and diacritics. The specific issues that led to my ban are discussed in [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]]. But I will present some larger lessons I learned here. In a series of cases I am familiar with, Wikipedia has resolved persistent conflict between liberal and conservative editors by banning conservatives. Judging from my case, this policy may apply even when the conflict is largely a result of the liberal editor being malicious and unreasonable, and the conservative editor is a top contributor. I was banned over an article I wrote about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. So retreating to an apolitical topic didn't work. I find it unlikely that so many high-ranking admins would take an interest in my activities at the same time on their own initiative. I don't think I was doing anything out of the ordinary at that time. At any rate, no one in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner the banning discussion] claimed that I was. There was an admin who protected me earlier and later stopped editing. This may have been what triggered the offensive against me. I assume some admins got together off Wikipedia, worked out a strategy, and presented everyone else with a ''fait accompli.'' This Star Chamber procedure is the opposite of consensus, supposedly Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. The banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after significant public discussion at ANI or Arbcom.