Changes

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 of the 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 was not enough to appease Team Harassment.

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 of the 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 was not enough to appease Team Harassment.

"Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. 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 took an interest in my activities at the same time on their own separate initiative. After all, I had been editing for eight years at that point. Somehow, the consensus-building process was short circuited. Perhaps a star chamber worked out a strategy off Wikipedia. There is a clique of feminist trollocrats, including User:Ponyo, who have been granted extraordinary powers to resolve Wikipedia's supposed "woman problem." I am apparently considered the epitome of this problem. Several comments I made in my own defense were oversighted, so I wasn't even allowed to explain myself.

"Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. 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 took an interest in my activities at the same time on their own separate initiative. After all, I had been editing for eight years at that point. Somehow, the consensus-building process was short circuited. Perhaps a star chamber worked out a strategy off Wikipedia. There is a clique of feminist trollocrats, including User:Ponyo, who have been granted extraordinary powers to resolve Wikipedia's supposed "woman problem." I was targeted as the epitome of this problem, apparently on account of [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | a few jokes I put on my user page]]. (I'm not that funny, really!) 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==