Changes

Why diacritics? For whatever reason, Arbcom was cracking down on editors with dissent views on diacritics at this time. Wikipedia guidelines instruct editors to follow “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29#Modified_letters the general usage]” on this question. I interpret this to mean that we should follow the ''Chicago Manual'', Merriam-Webster, or some other widely-used reference work. IIO argues that my approach discriminates against Vietnamese, as if this was a civil rights issue. (Before anyone takes this argument seriously, I should note that English-language websites run by the Vietnamese government also remove the diacritics.) A good style is one that goes unnoticed so that a reader can focus on content. Few English-language speakers are familiar with Vietnamese diacritics, so they stand out in running text. If the overarching thought the reader goes away with is “Gee, those Vietnamese use a lot of interesting marks,” that’s a failure of communication.

Why diacritics? For whatever reason, Arbcom was cracking down on editors with dissent views on diacritics at this time. Wikipedia guidelines instruct editors to follow “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29#Modified_letters the general usage]” on this question. I interpret this to mean that we should follow the ''Chicago Manual'', Merriam-Webster, or some other widely-used reference work. IIO argues that my approach discriminates against Vietnamese, as if this was a civil rights issue. (Before anyone takes this argument seriously, I should note that English-language websites run by the Vietnamese government also remove the diacritics.) A good style is one that goes unnoticed so that a reader can focus on content. Few English-language speakers are familiar with Vietnamese diacritics, so they stand out in running text. If the overarching thought the reader goes away with is “Gee, those Vietnamese use a lot of interesting marks,” that’s a failure of communication.

My case was discussed in ANI several times. Each time, the “consensus,” as it is called, was not to sanction me. At the time, I thought I’d won the battle. But it turned out that the only reason anyone respected any of these decisions is because there was an active admin who protected me. Once he took a break from editing, a consensus and fifty cents got me telephone call. In the harassment offensive that followed, many more editors became involved, few of whom were familiar with Vietnam-related issues. The offensive started with an attack on article I wrote on the [[Roman Warm Period]]. This time it featured crude insults and name calling. It continued with an attack on [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi|my user page]] and an article I wrote on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. None of that succeeded in provoking me into doing anything they could block me for. But Wikipedia has hundreds of admins, so a persistent editor can often find one who will do what he wants, a practice referred to as “forumshopping.” In the end, Team Harassment used a transparently bogus claim that I was edit warring as a pretext to block me.

My case was discussed in ANI several times. Each time, the “consensus,” as it is called, was not to sanction me. At the time, I thought I’d won the battle. But it turned out that the only reason anyone respected any of these decisions is because there was an active admin who protected me. Once he took a break from editing, a consensus and fifty cents got me a telephone call. In the harassment offensive that followed, many more editors became involved, few of whom were familiar with Vietnam-related issues. The offensive started with an attack on article I wrote on the [[Roman Warm Period]]. This time it featured crude insults and name calling. It continued with an attack on [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi|my user page]] and an article I wrote on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Sino-Vietnamese characters]. None of that succeeded in provoking me into doing anything they could block me for. But Wikipedia has hundreds of admins, so a persistent editor can often find one who will do what he wants, a practice referred to as “forumshopping.” In the end, Team Harassment used a transparently bogus claim that I was edit warring as a pretext to block me.

Sue Gardner, executive director at the time, was intent on moving Wikipedia to the left. Perhaps this is why various political issues came up. As far as IIO and the rest of Team Harassment were concerned, the fact that I had narrowly escaped sanction earlier was reason enough to try again. Since Gardner left Wikipedia, other editors caught up in the great diacritics purge have returned. Compared to people who were more easily provoked, I was a lot more trouble to block and ban. Reinstating me at this point would require too many admins to backtrack.

Sue Gardner, executive director at the time, was intent on moving Wikipedia to the left. Perhaps this is why various political issues came up. As far as IIO and the rest of Team Harassment were concerned, the fact that I had narrowly escaped sanction earlier was reason enough to try again. Since Gardner left Wikipedia, other editors caught up in the great diacritics purge have returned. Compared to people who were more easily provoked, I was a lot more trouble to block and ban. Reinstating me at this point would require too many admins to backtrack.