PeterKa

==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]]. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, left Wikipedia in May 2014. No one cares about the essay anymore. It's all about petty old grudges now. They are 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]]. [https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/ User:William Connolley] played a supporting role in my banning, so my views concerning the climate may have been a factor as well. Sue Gardner, executive director at that time, left Wikipedia in May 2014. No one cares about the essay anymore. Now it's all about petty grudges from long ago. They are 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 makes any constructive suggestions. No one discusses how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the commenters attack 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 makes any constructive suggestions. No one discusses how the appeal could be improved or what trust-building activity might be appropriate. Instead, the commenters attack 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.