Changes

I would like to appeal my ban of 23 August 2013. I have a collection of supporting material, including my appeal from 2013 and testimonials from Bermicourt and Jenks24. Jenks reviewed this document and suggested that I express my willingness to accept a diacritics topic ban, which I am willing to accept.

I would like to appeal my ban of 23 August 2013. I have a collection of supporting material, including my appeal from 2013 and testimonials from Bermicourt and Jenks24. Jenks reviewed this document and suggested that I express my willingness to accept a diacritics topic ban, which I am willing to accept.

*'''Summary'''. At one point, I was one of the editors most eligible for adminship, according to Scottywong’s matrix. Following a year-long campaign against me by several editors, I was blocked and banned. An article I wrote about Sino-Vietnamese characters was used as a pretext. Other issues involved include Vietnamese diacritics and a parody I wrote about the gender categories issue (made famous by Amanda Filipacchi). It is the style of every major English-language publisher to give Vietnamese names without diacritics, but that doesn’t seem to stop editors from coming up with their own styles.

*'''Summary.''' At one point, I was one of the editors most eligible for adminship, according to Scottywong’s matrix. Following a year-long campaign against me by several editors, I was blocked and banned. An article I wrote about Sino-Vietnamese characters was the catalyst. Other issues involved include Vietnamese diacritics and a parody I wrote about the gender categories issue (made famous by Amanda Filipacchi). It is the style of every major publishing house to give Vietnamese names without diacritics.

:MSGJ blocked me in July 2012 over the diacritics issue. However, I was unblocked almost immediately by Jenks24. Several unsuccessful proposals to topic ban me followed. After I was blocked for opposing the merger of my article on Sino-Vietnamese characters, there was a banning discussion that mostly rehashed the old accusations. But this time I was not allowed to defend myself, so it passed.

:MSGJ blocked me in July 2012 over the diacritics issue. However, I was unblocked almost immediately by Jenks24. Several unsuccessful proposals to topic ban me followed. After I was blocked for opposing the merger of my article on Sino-Vietnamese characters, there was a banning discussion where the old accusations were rehashed. But this time I was not allowed to defend myself, so it was passed.

*'''How it all started'''. On Scottywong’s admin hopeful list for 4 March 2013, I have a score of 320. This is after 500 points were deducted on account of MSGJ’s block. If you add these points to my score, I am No. 12 on the list. (In ictu oculi is No. 184.) Up until the MSGJ block, I had a clean track record going back eight years that included tens of thousands of constructive edits.

*'''How it all started.''' On Scottywong’s admin hopeful list for 4 March 2013, I have a score of 320. This is after 500 points were deducted on account of MSGJ’s block. If you add these points to my score, I am ranked No. 12 on the list. (In ictu oculi is No. 184.) Up until the MSGJ block, I had a clean track record going back eight years that included tens of thousands of constructive edits.

:IIO and I used to translate foreign language titles to English together. This partnership lasted until June 2012 when GoodDay was topic banned. After this, the editors who had been involved in harassing GoodDay needed a new victim to work on. IIO has shown an astonishing amount of time and energy to devote to making trouble for me. He not only goes through my edit history to find people I have argued with in the past, and but also sends intimidating messages to anyone who might support my position. He gets away with these tactics because he has the backing of Cuchullain, an admin. Cuchullain has no interest Vietnam or its diacritics. His complaint is that I had some sort of undeserved privileged status. I was never even a rollbacker, so I assume this is a reference to the MSGJ incident. Why anyone would think it was a privilege to be blocked, even briefly, I couldn’t say.

:IIO and I used to translate foreign language titles to English together. This partnership lasted until June 2012, when GoodDay was topic banned over diacritics. The pro-diacritic editors who had been involved in that case were thus looking for a new project at this time. IIO has a surprising amount of time and energy to devote to following me around. He not only goes through my edit history to find people I have argued with in the past, and also sends warnings to anyone who might support my position. He is supported by Cuchullain, an admin with no interest Vietnam or its diacritics. His complaint is that I had some sort of privileged status that I don’t deserve. I was never even a rollbacker, I don’t know where idea comes from.

*'''It was entrapment'''. My Han-Nom article has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and any other hot-button subject. Sino-Vietnamese characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. I assume the group of editors who favored merger was assembled by IIO through email. Kanguole and Gaijin42, neither of whom otherwise has any particular interest in Vietnam, developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. They also adopted the same curiously vindictive attitude. After an article gets merged, demanding that the author be blocked is not logically the next step. I assume the idea was to entrap me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never actually broke this rule, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to WP:3RRNO, page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction.

*'''It was entrapment.''' My Han-Nom article has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and any other hot-button subject. Sino-Vietnamese characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. I assume the group of editors who favored merger was assembled by IIO through email. Kanguole and Gaijin42, neither of whom otherwise has any particular interest in Vietnam, developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. They also adopted the same curiously vindictive attitude. After an article gets merged, demanding that the author be blocked is not logically the next step. I assume the idea was to entrap me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never actually broke this rule, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to WP:3RRNO, page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction.

*'''Diacritics'''. In July and August of 2011, there was an RFC on diacritics with a very large participation. This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of Britannica and National Geographic. Although these two publications represent the most diacritic-friendly style models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Nor did anyone in the discussion suggest that they should be added.  I then rewrote the Vietnam naming guideline to reflect the apparent consensus. I also made various article moves to comply with this rewritten guideline. The changes I made to the guideline, as well as the article moves I made, were in effect for over two years.

*'''Diacritics.''' In July and August of 2011, there was an RFC on diacritics with a very large participation. This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of Britannica and National Geographic. Although these two publications represent the most diacritic-friendly style models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Nor did anyone in the discussion suggest that they should be added.  I then rewrote the Vietnam naming guideline to reflect the apparent consensus. I also made various article moves to comply with this rewritten guideline. The changes I made to the guideline, as well as the article moves I made, were in effect for over two years.

:The purpose of an article title is to tell the reader the English-language name of the subject. None of the relevant style guides or reference works support the idea of including diacritics in the English-language form of a Vietnamese name, as I discuss in detail here.

:The purpose of an article title is to tell the reader the English-language name of the subject. None of the relevant style guides or reference works support the idea of including diacritics in the English-language form of a Vietnamese name, as I discuss in detail here.

*'''Filipacchi'''. When I posted a draft of my first Arbcom appeal on Wikipediocracy, it unleashed a storm of WP:OUTING and personal attacks. As these attacks focused on an essay I wrote concerning gender categories, I will comment on this essay briefly. I consulted Amatulic at the time and followed his advice in good faith. That’s a full defense regardless of what anyone might think of the essay itself. Not only that, but the content of the essay is entirely innocuous.

*'''Filipacchi.''' When I posted a draft of my first Arbcom appeal on Wikipediocracy, it unleashed a storm of WP:OUTING and personal attacks. As these attacks focused on an essay I wrote concerning gender categories, I will comment on this essay briefly. I consulted Amatulic at the time and followed his advice in good faith. That’s a full defense regardless of what anyone might think of the essay itself. Not only that, but the content of the essay is entirely innocuous.

Here are my links again:

Just in case formatting is lost in transit, here are my links again:

*Scottywang admin scoring tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scottywong/Admin_scoring_tool_results

*Scottywang admin scoring tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scottywong/Admin_scoring_tool_results

*Testimonials and other supporting material http://www.conservapedia.com/User:PeterKa/Arbcom

*Testimonials and other supporting material http://www.conservapedia.com/User:PeterKa/Arbcom