Difference between revisions of "User:PeterKa"
(CMOS can stay on the techie page) |
(reword) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted conservatives? They have it down to a science. Liberal editors will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a clique senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI. | Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted conservatives? They have it down to a science. Liberal editors will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a clique senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI. | ||
| − | 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. 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 wrote [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | an essay on the technical aspects of the issue]]. However, I | + | 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. 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 wrote [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | an essay on the technical aspects of the issue]]. However, I doubt that anybody involved the affair was all that interested in the diacritics themselves. They were looking for a pretext to do a purge.) |
| − | A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. Someone started blanking articles 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 under the edit warring guideline, which classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." 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. | + | A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. Someone started blanking articles 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 under the edit warring guideline, which classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." 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 diacritics 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 keep bringing up the same complaints again and again 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 ANI | + | After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this sleazy tactic. To keep bringing up the same complaints again and again 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. |
As an ex-Wikipedian, I am not protected by any policy. Other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and even give out my real name. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and edited it. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively. 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, I am not protected by any policy. Other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and even give out my real name. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and edited it. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]]. | ||
Revision as of 12:47, June 30, 2014
Ever wondered how Wikipedia gets rid of unwanted conservatives? They have it down to a science. Liberal editors will harass the victim until he reacts. Then they use his reaction as the basis for a complaint to Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Established liberal editors rarely get sanctioned for harassing a conservative, the situation has to be resolved somehow, so the result is often a "topic ban" for the conservative. At this point, Team Harassment smells blood, and more people get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban. He generally has to stop editing for an extended period, and he may even be banned altogether. If he doesn't fall for any of these gags, the matter can always be referred to a clique senior admins who act as feminist enforcers. This clique has extraordinary powers that are not documented anywhere in the guidelines, at least as far as I am aware. They hand out extended blocks without prior warning, make up their own rules, and skip ANI.
At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 33,000 edits and a clean record. (I'm "Kauffner" on this list.) Then I was blocked by MSGJ, a newbie admin, for "your diacritics crusade," as he put it. 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 wrote an essay on the technical aspects of the issue. However, I doubt that anybody involved the affair was all that interested in the diacritics themselves. They were looking for a pretext to do a purge.)
A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and Team Harassment set up a trap for me. Someone started blanking articles 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 under the edit warring guideline, which classifies article blanking as a form of "obvious vandalism." 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 diacritics in 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 keep bringing up the same complaints again and again is called "forum shopping." In fact, 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.
As an ex-Wikipedian, I am not protected by any policy. Other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and even give out my real name. In an Orwellian twist, the past is fair game too. Some oversighter has gone through the discussion archive and edited it. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out my Arbcom appeal.