Changes

==My time at Wikipedia==

==My time at Wikipedia==

Back in 2012, I estimate that I ranked somewhere around No. 5 as an active non-administrative editor at Wikipedia. I could boast tens of thousands of edits on as well as a clean eight-year track record. So what does it take for a senior editor to get banned? You can write [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | an essay mocking a feminist friend of the executive director]]. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, moved on long ago. But the ban itself continues as senior admins nurse their various grudges. It's no longer about politics, censorship, or anything interesting, just [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#User:Kauffner_request_for_unblock_per_WP:STANDARDOFFER the rage of those who blank articles at those who write them.]

Back in 2012, I estimate that I ranked somewhere around No. 5 as an active non-administrative editor at Wikipedia. I could boast tens of thousands of edits on as well as a clean eight-year track record. So what does it take for a senior editor to get banned? You can write [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | an essay mocking a feminist friend of the executive director]]. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, moved on May 2014. At this point, it's just about the fun of being vindictive.  

The appeal I linked to above got sixteen angry replies in the space of eight hours, an extraordinary response for an ANI post. According to the guidelines, the admin is always right and the sanctioned user must apologize. So there is a basis to reject my appeal. But not one response makes any constructive suggestions. No one discusses how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the comments are full of attacks on my "mentality" and other personal characteristics. Each discussion of my case has featured a different "real reason" as to why I was banned. The comments are always in synch with the current party line, and no one is confused as to which reason is the "real" one this time around. During my time on Wikipedia, I count five separate occasions when angry mobs came out of nowhere to dominate otherwise sleepy forums. In short, the system is obviously rigged with editors who know what they are supposed to do notified in some way.

My latest appeal got [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#User:Kauffner_request_for_unblock_per_WP:STANDARDOFFER sixteen angry replies in the space of eight hours], an extraordinary response for an ANI post. According to the guidelines, the admin is always right and the sanctioned user must apologize. So there is a basis to reject my appeal. But not one response makes any constructive suggestions. No one discusses how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the comments are full of attacks on my "mentality" and other personal characteristics. Each discussion of my case has featured a different "real reason" as to why I was banned. The comments are always in synch with the current party line, and no one is confused as to which reason is the "real" one this time around. During my time on Wikipedia, I count five separate occasions when angry mobs came out of nowhere to dominate otherwise sleepy forums. In short, the system is obviously rigged with editors who know what they are supposed to do notified in some way.

Few of the editors who condemn me in the latest discussion have even one tenth the level of experience that I have. Several have less than one twentieth. Yet each and every one of them is confident that they understand Wikipedia better than I do. Notice the comment by User:Heimstern near the end. As Arbcom enforcer, he speaks for Wikipedia's top brass. He made this mess, but now he washes his hands of it.

Few of the editors who condemn me in the latest discussion have even one tenth the level of experience that I have. Several have less than one twentieth. Yet each and every one of them is confident that they understand Wikipedia better than I do. Notice the comment by User:Heimstern near the end. As Arbcom enforcer, he speaks for Wikipedia's top brass. He made this mess, but now he washes his hands of it.

* [[Diacritic]] — This is a zippy overview of one of the most controversial aspects of my editing.

* [[Diacritic]] — This is a zippy overview of one of the most controversial aspects of my editing.

* [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal |Diacritics proposal]] — You can find a detailed set of arguments here.

* [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal |Diacritics proposal]] — You can find a detailed set of arguments here.