Changes

==Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit -- unless you make fun of a feminist, or a liberal editor wants to make trouble for you==

==Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit -- unless you make fun of a feminist novelist, or if a liberal user wants to make trouble for you==

I am your basic refugee from Wikipedia's ideological warfare. 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.  

If you are interested in the specific issues that led to my ban, you can read about them 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 a noncontroversial and apolitical topic didn't work.

 

"Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. So the banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after public discussion at ANI or Arbcom. It is unlikely that so many high-ranking admins would take an interest in my activities at the same time on their own initiative. Somehow, the process was short circuited. Perhaps a Star Chamber worked out a strategy off Wikipedia. There is a clique of feminazi admins who have been granted extraordinary powers to resolve Wikipedia's supposed "woman problem," including User:Ponyo. Several comments I made in my own defense were oversighted, so I wasn't even allowed to explain myself.

==What I have written==

==What I have written==