Difference between revisions of "User:PeterKa"
(rewrite) |
(add) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit -- unless you make fun of a feminist novelist, or if a liberal user wants to make trouble for you== | ==Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit -- unless you make fun of a feminist novelist, or if a liberal user wants to make trouble for you== | ||
| − | If you are interested in the specific issues that led to my ban, you can read about them in [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]]. But I will present some of the larger lessons I learned here. In a series of cases I am familiar with, Wikipedia has resolved persistent conflict between liberal and conservative editors by banning conservatives. Judging from my case, this policy may apply even when the conflict is largely a result of the liberal editor being malicious and unreasonable, and the conservative editor is a top contributor. I was banned over an article I wrote about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. So retreating to | + | If you are interested in the specific issues that led to my ban, you can read about them in [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]]. But I will present some of the larger lessons I learned here. In a series of cases I am familiar with, Wikipedia has resolved persistent conflict between liberal and conservative editors by banning conservatives. Judging from my case, this policy may apply even when the conflict is largely a result of the liberal editor being malicious and unreasonable, and the conservative editor is a top contributor. I was banned over an article I wrote about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. So retreating to an apolitical topic was not enough to appease Team Harassment. |
| − | "Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. The banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after public discussion at ANI or Arbcom. It is unlikely that so many high-ranking admins | + | "Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. The banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after public discussion at ANI or Arbcom. It is unlikely that so many high-ranking admins took an interest in my activities at the same time separately and on their own initiative. After all, I had been editing for years at that point. Somehow, the process was short circuited. Perhaps a Star Chamber worked out a strategy off Wikipedia. There is a clique of feminazi admins, including User:Ponyo, who have been granted extraordinary powers to resolve Wikipedia's supposed "woman problem." I am apparently considered the epitome of this problem. Several comments I made in my own defense were oversighted, so I wasn't even allowed to explain myself. |
==What I have written== | ==What I have written== | ||
Revision as of 10:58, March 9, 2014
Wikipedia: The encyclopedia anyone can edit -- unless you make fun of a feminist novelist, or if a liberal user wants to make trouble for you
If you are interested in the specific issues that led to my ban, you can read about them in my Arbcom appeal. But I will present some of the larger lessons I learned here. In a series of cases I am familiar with, Wikipedia has resolved persistent conflict between liberal and conservative editors by banning conservatives. Judging from my case, this policy may apply even when the conflict is largely a result of the liberal editor being malicious and unreasonable, and the conservative editor is a top contributor. I was banned over an article I wrote about Sino-Vietnamese characters. So retreating to an apolitical topic was not enough to appease Team Harassment.
"Consensus" is supposed to be Wikipedia's basic organizing principle. The banning of someone with any significant amount of editing experience is normally done only after public discussion at ANI or Arbcom. It is unlikely that so many high-ranking admins took an interest in my activities at the same time separately and on their own initiative. After all, I had been editing for years at that point. Somehow, the process was short circuited. Perhaps a Star Chamber worked out a strategy off Wikipedia. There is a clique of feminazi admins, including User:Ponyo, who have been granted extraordinary powers to resolve Wikipedia's supposed "woman problem." I am apparently considered the epitome of this problem. Several comments I made in my own defense were oversighted, so I wasn't even allowed to explain myself.