Changes

* Read my [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | parody of Wikipedia's gender categories affair]]

*[[Republicans (Jeffersonian)]],  [[Classical Chinese]], [[Empress Dowager Cixi]], [[diacritic]], [[Mandarin]], [[Nuclear option]], [[Star_Trek_franchise#Political_themes]], [[Tang Tuyet Minh]], [[Roman Warm Period]], [[No Gun Ri]], [[Vietcong]], [[Republic of China]], [[rule of law]], [[YAD06]], [[Girls' Generation]], [[Xia dynasty]], [[Shang dynasty]], [[rule of law]]

* [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | My Arbcom appeal]] has a blow-by-blow account of what happened during my time on Wikipedia.

* [[Diacritic]] — This is a zippy overview of the most controversial aspect of my editing.

* [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal |Diacritics proposal]] — You can find a detailed set of arguments here.

==My time at Wikipedia==

==My time at Wikipedia==

The ANI discussion that followed was obviously rigged. It was full of people I'd never heard of up to that point, as well as other people IIO had recruited. Although no compelling arguments were presented, everyone voted to ban me. So they must have been canvassed together somehow. One editor accused me of multiple voting. No actual case was mentioned. This was apparently a drive-by editor, someone making a wild guess as to what the fuss was all about. The other votes were even less specific. They typically did little more than toss around ANI clichés like "disruptive" and "Hasn't he been banned already?" Not a single diff was presented -- a diff being Wikipedia's version of evidence. Although IIO had often made a fuss about [[diacritics]] earlier, this issue was not mentioned in the banning discussion.

The ANI discussion that followed was obviously rigged. It was full of people I'd never heard of up to that point, as well as other people IIO had recruited. Although no compelling arguments were presented, everyone voted to ban me. So they must have been canvassed together somehow. One editor accused me of multiple voting. No actual case was mentioned. This was apparently a drive-by editor, someone making a wild guess as to what the fuss was all about. The other votes were even less specific. They typically did little more than toss around ANI clichés like "disruptive" and "Hasn't he been banned already?" Not a single diff was presented -- a diff being Wikipedia's version of evidence. Although IIO had often made a fuss about [[diacritics]] earlier, this issue was not mentioned in the banning discussion.

* Read my [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | parody of Wikipedia's gender categories affair]]

 

* [[User:PeterKa/Arbcom | My Arbcom appeal]] has a blow-by-blow account of what happened during my time on Wikipedia.

Why diacritics? Wikipedia's leadership likes to present itself as being above mere style disputes, so there isn't much straight talk on this issue. But whatever the reason, Arbcom was at this time cracking down on editors with dissent views on the funny squiggles. 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. Although these works do give the names of people and places from various countries with diacritics, this is not the case for Vietnam. (See my [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | handy chart]] for details.) IIO argues that this approach discriminates against Vietnamese, as if this was a civil rights issue. (Before anyone takes this argument seriously, I should note that IIO is French and 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 speakers are familiar with Vietnamese diacritics, so they stand out in running text. If the dominate thought the reader goes away with is, “Gee, those Vietnamese use a lot of interesting marks,” that’s a failure of communication.

* [[Diacritic]] — This is a zippy overview of the most controversial aspect of my editing.

 

* [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal |Diacritics proposal]] — You can find a detailed set of arguments here.

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 later it turned out that the only reason these decisions were respected is because there was an active admin who protected me. Once he took a break from editing, an ANI consensus and fifty cents was worth a telephone call. In the offensive that followed, many more editors became involved, few of whom were familiar with Vietnam-related issues. The offensive started with an attack on an article I wrote on the [[Roman Warm Period]] led by William Connolly, a climate troll and one of Wikipedia's most famous editors. I assume IIO recruited him somehow. This time the emphasis was on crude insults and name calling. It continued with an attack on [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi|my user page]] and on 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 I could be blocked for. In the end, Team Harassment had to use a transparently bogus claim that I was edit warring as a pretext.

 

Sue Gardner, executive director at the time, was intent on moving Wikipedia to the left.[http://suegardner.org/2013/09/04/how-wikipedia-got-it-wrong-on-chelsea-manning-and-why/] To IIO and the rest of Team Harassment, the fact that I had narrowly escaped sanction earlier was reason enough to try again. Since Gardner left Wikipedia in May 2014, other victims of the great diacritics purge have returned to active editing. Compared to people who were more easily provoked, I was more trouble to block and ban. Reinstating me at this point would require too many admins to backtrack. In the months after I was banned, well over a thousand articles were moved to diacritic and otherwise non-English titles.

 

People who should know have told me that Arbcom started manipulating my case behind the scenes well before I was banned. That would certainly help explain why so many editors became interested in my case at that time. If so, Arbcom effectively overrode the various ANI discussions that had gone in my favor. Arbcom is set up as a quasi judicial body, so it is irregular for the group to act in a case that was not appealed.

 

*[[Nazarene]]‎, [[J. Frank Norris]], [[Peter Ruckman]], [[Textus Receptus]], [[sensus plenior]], [[divine accommodation]], [[Yule]], [[Johannine Comma]], [[Codex Washingtonianus]], [[Star of Bethlehem]], [[Fundamentalism]], [[Tertiary]], [[Andy McIntosh]]