PeterKa

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? Write [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | an essay mocking the feminist friend of the executive director]]. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, moved on long ago. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#User:Kauffner_request_for_unblock_per_WP:STANDARDOFFER the ban itself continues] as senior admins nurse their various grudges. It's no longer about politics, censorship, or anything interesting, just the rage of those who blank articles at those who write them.

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? Write [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | an essay mocking the feminist friend of the executive director]]. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, moved on long ago. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#User:Kauffner_request_for_unblock_per_WP:STANDARDOFFER the ban itself continues] as senior admins nurse their various grudges. It's no longer about politics, censorship, or anything interesting, just the rage of those who blank articles at those who write them.

The appeal I linked to above got sixteen angry replies in the space of eight hours. According to the guidelines, the admin is always right and the user must apologize. So there is a basis to reject my appeal. But not one response includes a constructive suggestion on how the appeal could be improved or what else might be done. Instead, they are full of bitter personal  attacks on my "mentality" and so forth. And why do so many replies make similar points? Each discussion has featured a different "real reason" why I was banned, yet all participates are hip to whatever the current party line is. During my time on Wikipedia, I count five separate occasions when angry mobs came out of nowhere to dominate otherwise sleepy forums and talk pages. The system is obviously rigged. Somebody is the whip and he sends out notices to the troops (in Wikispeak, "canvasses"). Few of the editors who condemn me have even one tenth the level of experience that I have. Several have less than one twentieth. Yet each and every one them is confident that they understand Wikipedia better than I do.

The appeal I linked to above got sixteen angry replies in the space of eight hours. According to the guidelines, the admin is always right and the user must apologize. So there is a basis to reject my appeal. But not one response includes a constructive suggestion on how the appeal could be improved or what else might be done. Instead, they are full of bitter personal  attacks on my "mentality" and so forth. And why do so many replies make similar points? Each discussion has featured a different "real reason" why I was banned, with participants in synch with whatever the current party line is. During my time on Wikipedia, I count five separate occasions when angry mobs came out of nowhere to dominate otherwise sleepy forums and talk pages. The system is obviously rigged. Somebody is the whip and he sends out notices to the troops (in Wikispeak, "canvasses"). Few of the editors who condemn me have even one tenth the level of experience that I have. Several have less than one twentieth. Yet each and every one them is confident that they understand Wikipedia better than I do.

'''Related pages'''

'''Related pages'''