PeterKa

A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and 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" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. 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. 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 [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]].

A few months later, Jenks24 stopped editing and 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" by Ponyo, a high ranking admin and oversighter. 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. 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 [[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 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. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. Most participants were less interested in making an argument than in copping a 'tude. They were anxious to present themselves as some sort of inner circle hovering high above me, but in fact I had about the same level of experience as the people in the discussion.

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. Proper procedure is to appeal an ANI finding to Arbcom. There is not much in the way of specific accusations against me, much less diffs to support them. No one suggested that that I was an experienced editor who made mistakes. No, I was an interloper who never belonged on Wikipedia. This is quite a lot of smugness when you consider that I had about the same level of experience as many of the people in the discussion.

There is one accusation in the discussion that may sound legit. It accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. But this claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. It 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.

There is one accusation in the discussion that may sound legit. It accuses me of using multiple accounts to vote multiple times in Requested Move discussions. But this claim is just nonsense. In fact, the issue had never even come up earlier. It 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.