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]]. Climate change warrior <tt>[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/ User:William Connolley]</tt>, perhaps Wikipedia's most notorious editor, played a supporting role in my banning. (Hey, Connolley even has a nickname for me.)

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 Executive Director Sue Gardner. Climate change warrior <tt>[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/ User:William Connolley]</tt>, perhaps Wikipedia's most notorious editor, played a supporting role in my banning. (Hey, Connolley even has a nickname for me.)

After I was banned, [http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3489&p=71637 I took my case to Wikipediocracy], a Wikipedia criticism site. They also banned me. The response was almost immediate, like they knew I was coming. Executive Director Sue Gardner's clique apparently ran both sites at the time. Gardner left Wikipedia in May 2014. For a brief moment, it seemed like things might change for the better. It's not like anyone else cares about the essay. As near as I can tell, the people who are keeping me banned these days have zero interest in the articles I write and the forums that I comment in. They are just having some fun being vindictive.

After I was banned, [http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3489&p=71637 I took my case to Wikipediocracy], a Wikipedia criticism site. They banned me almost immediately, like they knew I was coming. Gardner's clique apparently ran both sites at the time. Gardner left Wikipedia in May 2014. For a brief moment, it seemed like things might change for the better. It's not like anyone else cares about the essay. As near as I can tell, the people who are keeping me banned these days have zero interest in the articles I write and the forums that I comment in. They are just having some fun being vindictive.

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 made a constructive suggestion of any kind. No one discussed how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the commenters attacked on my "mentality" and even described the appeal itself as "practically trolling." (Huh?) 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 rigged with editors who know what they are supposed to do notified through the IRC, or however they do it.

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 made a constructive suggestion of any kind. No one discussed how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the commenters attacked on my "mentality" and even described the appeal itself as "practically trolling." (Huh?) 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 rigged with eager-to-please editors notified through IRC, or however they do 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.  

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.