Changes

If Hollywood filmed this story, we would start with Gardner in her office reading [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]], or perhaps one of my other cheeky and amusing takes on Wikipedia goings on. Then she would roar, "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome editor!" Her minions would rush in, sharpening their laptops and girding their tablets. But that's the legend. Who knows how these grudge matches get started? At any rate, I was greatly relieved when Gardner finally left Wikipedia on June 1.

If Hollywood filmed this story, we would start with Gardner in her office reading [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]], or perhaps one of my other cheeky and amusing takes on Wikipedia goings on. Then she would roar, "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome editor!" Her minions would rush in, sharpening their laptops and girding their tablets. But that's the legend. Who knows how these grudge matches get started? At any rate, I was greatly relieved when Gardner finally left Wikipedia on June 1.

In June 2012, Arbcom decided to topic ban an editor named GoodDay after other editors harassed and provoked him. Editors who saw this decision as a vindication of bullying tried to extend it broadly. One editor named In ictu oculi became obsessed with my case, spent the next year going through my editing history looking for people who might have grudges against me, and fashioning them into a team. 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 on [[diacritics]] for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself, and this guideline conformed to higher-level Wikipedia policies.

In June 2012, Arbcom decided to topic ban an editor named GoodDay after other editors harassed and provoked him. Editors who saw this decision as a vindication of bullying tried to extend it to me. One editor named In ictu oculi became obsessed with my case, spent the next year going through my editing history looking for people who might have grudges against me, and fashioning them into a team. I was brought before ANI several times. These complaints related to the issue of [[diacritics]] in Vietnamese titles, although I had written the guideline on this subject myself.

A few months later, 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." 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.  

A few months later, Team Harassment started blanking articles that I'd written. I reverted the blanking and was blocked for "edit warring." 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 an established user without warning.  

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.  

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.  

One editor in the discussion suggests that I used multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. Although the post does not give the name of the RM in which this nefarious activity allegedly occurred, this is the closest thing I saw to a specific accusation. It is complete nonsense. In fact, the entire subject of multiple voting had never even come up earlier. The post was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.

One editor in the discussion suggests that I used multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. Although the post does not give the name of the RM in which this nefarious activity allegedly occurred, this is the closest thing I saw to a specific accusation. It is complete nonsense. In fact, the entire subject of multiple voting had never even come up earlier. The post was made by a drive-by editor who admits that he does not understand the situation. Yet it is now treated as a more or less official explanation of why I was banned.

In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has removed a post a made concerning my essay on gender categories, obviously to make me look worse. When I took my story to Wikipediocracy, I was blocked almost immediately by Alison, the same admin who deleted my gender categories on Wikipedia. In other words, the same clique runs both sites. There has been plenty of gloating along the way, and my real name has been given out several times. Both of these are normally serious violations of Wikipedia etiquette. So somebody with the authority to override standard procedure had it in for me.  

In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has removed a post a made concerning my essay on gender categories, obviously to make me look worse. When I took my story to Wikipediocracy, I was blocked almost immediately by Alison, the same admin who deleted my essay on Wikipedia. In other words, the same clique runs both sites. There has been plenty of gloating along the way, and my real name has been given out several times. Both of these are normally serious violations of Wikipedia etiquette. So somebody with the authority to override standard procedure had it in for me.  

Based on what Gardner has said and written, I gather that I personify everything she hates about Wikipedia. I'm certainly "the crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards."[http://m.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/] I'm also the guy who favors "accuracy" over "kindness."[http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/] On top of that, I'm the guy who thinks "Ganges" is an excellent name for a river in India.[http://www.fastcompany.com/1739776/wikipedias-librarian-world]

Based on what Gardner has said and written, I gather that I personify everything she hates about Wikipedia. I'm certainly "the crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards."[http://m.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/] I'm also the guy who favors "accuracy" over "kindness."[http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/] On top of that, I'm the guy who thinks "Ganges" is an excellent name for a river in India.[http://www.fastcompany.com/1739776/wikipedias-librarian-world]