Changes

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].) Then I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin, for "your diacritics crusade," as he put it. (If you are wondering what a diacritic is, [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | this essay]] summarizes my views on the subject.) 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. I'm not convinced that anybody else involved was all that interested in either Vietnam or its diacritics. It was a bunch of yahoos and their toadies assaulting the Vietnam project, a project that I had been active in for years. They focused on diacritics to take advantage of a recent Arbcom decision regarding a user named GoodDay.

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].) Then I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin, for "your diacritics crusade," as he put it. (If you are wondering what a diacritic is, [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | this essay]] summarizes my views on the subject.) 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. I'm not convinced that anybody else involved was all that interested in either Vietnam or its diacritics. It was a bunch of yahoos and their toadies assaulting the Vietnam project, a project that I had been active in for years. They focused on diacritics to take advantage of a recent Arbcom decision regarding a user named GoodDay.

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 accusation makes no sense given that the edit warring guideline classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." Even in a real warring situation, it would most unusual for a 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]].

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. There aren't even any specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. One of the comments in the banning discussion accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. This claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. The comment was made by a drive-by editor who openly admitted that he not understand the issue. Yet this accusation is now treated as the more or less official reason why I was banned.

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. There aren't even any specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. One of the comments in the banning discussion accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. This claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. The comment was made by a drive-by editor who openly admitted that he not understand the issue. Yet it is now treated as the more or less official reason 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. 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, 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. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]].