Difference between revisions of "User:PeterKa"
(→My time at Wikipedia: add) |
(→My time at Wikipedia: Connolley even has a nickname for me.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==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]]. <tt>[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/ User:William Connolley]</tt> played a supporting role in my banning, so my views concerning global warming may have been a factor as well. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, left Wikipedia in May 2014. The people involved now don't care about the essay. They have no interest in the articles I write, or the forums that I comment in. They are just having fun being vindictive. | + | 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]]. <tt>[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/ User:William Connolley]</tt> played a supporting role in my banning, so my views concerning global warming may have been a factor as well. (Connolley even has a nickname for me. So I must be on his mind.) Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, left Wikipedia in May 2014. The people involved now don't care about the essay. They have no interest in the articles I write, or the forums that I comment in. They are just having 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 refer to the submission of the appeal as "trolling." 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 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 refer to the submission of the appeal as "trolling." 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. | ||
Revision as of 09:09, August 23, 2016
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 an essay mocking a feminist friend of the executive director. User:William Connolley played a supporting role in my banning, so my views concerning global warming may have been a factor as well. (Connolley even has a nickname for me. So I must be on his mind.) Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, left Wikipedia in May 2014. The people involved now don't care about the essay. They have no interest in the articles I write, or the forums that I comment in. They are just having fun being vindictive.
My latest appeal 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 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 refer to the submission of the appeal as "trolling." 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.
Related pages
- Read my parody of Wikipedia's gender categories affair. Behold the masterpiece that Wikipedia censored and banned me for.
- I blow the lid off the Ivory Coast RM scam. This post created a few awkward moments for corrupt admin Billinghurst.
- My Arbcom appeal has a blow-by-blow account of what happened during my time on Wikipedia.
- Diacritic — This is a zippy overview of one of the most controversial aspects of my editing.
- Diacritics proposal — You can find a detailed set of arguments here.