PeterKa

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 will get involved. They accuse the victim of violating the topic ban so he can be banned from Wikipedia altogether.

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 can stop editing or be banned from Wikipedia altogether.

After Team Harassment got a topic ban for an editor named Goodday, they attempted to do the same for other conservative editors. So they began harassing me. But I was well-established editor with tens of thousands of edits, and I could argue circles around them in ANI discussions. It took a year-long campaign of harassment to get me banned. Every time I logged in, there was a new post denouncing me for something or other.

At one point, I was a top Wikipedia contributor with over 37,000 edits and a clean record. 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. I was implementing a guideline for Vietnamese titles which I had written myself. The guideline was written to conformed to higher level Wikipedia policies, as well as to the ''Chicago Manual of Style'', a style standard recommended in the guidelines.

Finally, my case went to an admin named Ponyo. She is apparently high enough in the Wikipedia hierarchy so that she doesn't need to issue warnings before blocking or follow the other procedural safeguards. She imposed a a two-week block on me for "edit warring." Even her note explaining the block doesn't take this pretext all that seriously. It is mostly about other incidents that occurred months earlier. The only way she would have known about these incidents is if she had been recruited by a member of Team Harassment. Ponyo is a feminist, so she may have gotten involved in response to [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | this essay]]. I assume many of the issues used to harass me were just pretexts. After all, who gets excited about diacritics or Sino-Vietnamese characters?

A few month 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 to the "diacritics crusade" block from a year earlier. This suggests that it belongs under the heading "more payback."

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this tactic. To keep bringing up the same complaint 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.

After I was blocked, an ANI discussion could be held without my participation. There is of course a rule against this tactic. To keep bringing up the same complaint 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; It's almost a parody of forum shopping. In these previous discussions, it was decided not to sanction me in any way. By the time of the banning discussion, various editors had put in a great deal of effort into to campaign against me. They wanted validation for the earlier harassment. The discussion was more about them than it was about me. They didn't even bother to make specific allegations against me, much less present diffs.

As an ex-Wikipedian, I’m not protected by any policy. In short, losing a fight over an obscure style point means that other editors are now free to post vicious personal attacks and 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]].

 

Later, I noticed that several of the posts I made these earlier discussions were "oversighted" -- disappeared from the point of view of the ordinary user. Ponyo is an oversighter, so perhaps it is her doing. Apparently, I had defended myself too effectively for these posts to be left in the archive. If you are interested in the play-by-play of what happened to me, check out [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | my Arbcom appeal]].

My total, permanent ban might suggest that I'm the worst of the worst. But it came about precisely because Team Harassment was unsuccessful in getting lesser sanctions. It got what it wanted by overriding the due process protections experienced editors normally receive.

My total, permanent ban might suggest that I'm the worst of the worst. But it came about precisely because Team Harassment was unsuccessful in getting lesser sanctions. It got what it wanted by overriding the due process protections experienced editors normally receive.