Changes

Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted conservatives? They have it down to a science. Liberal editors 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 can stop editing or be banned from Wikipedia altogether.

Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted conservatives? They have it down to a science. Liberal editors 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 can stop editing or be banned from Wikipedia altogether.

At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 37,000 edits and a clean record. Then 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. I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself. The guideline was written to conformed to higher level Wikipedia policies, as well as to the ''Chicago Manual of Style'', a style standard recommended in the guidelines.

At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 37,000 edits and a clean record. Then 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. I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself. The guideline conformed to higher level Wikipedia policies, as well as to the ''Chicago Manual of Style'', a widely followed style standard recommended in the guidelines.

A few month later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. Someone started blanking articles I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. The accusation makes no sense under the edit warring guideline, which classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." The message explaining the block refers to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. This suggests that it belongs under the heading "more payback."  

A few month later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. Someone started blanking articles I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. The accusation makes no sense under the edit warring guideline, which classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." The message explaining the block refers to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. I put it under the heading "more payback."

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this tactic. To keep bringing up the same complaint again and again 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.

 

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this tactic. To keep bringing up the same complaint again and again 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. There aren't even any specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them.

As an ex-Wikipedian, I’m not protected by any policy. In short, losing a fight over an obscure style point means that other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and give out my real name. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and edited it. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]].

As an ex-Wikipedian, I’m not protected by any policy. In short, losing a fight over an obscure style point means that other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and give out my real name. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and edited it. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]].