Changes

Disciplinary discussions I have read typically consist of allegations, diffs to support these allegations, and a discussion of the seriousness of the alleged misbehavior. But there is nothing like that in my case. There is one clueless post that accuses me of multiple voting in RMs, and another one that indirectly mentions a parody I posted on my user page back in May. Otherwise, there are no specific allegations, much less diffs to support them.

Disciplinary discussions I have read typically consist of allegations, diffs to support these allegations, and a discussion of the seriousness of the alleged misbehavior. But there is nothing like that in my case. There is one clueless post that accuses me of multiple voting in RMs, and another one that indirectly mentions a parody I posted on my user page back in May. Otherwise, there are no specific allegations, much less diffs to support them.

I know there is a lot of hard feeling about the Amanda Filipacchi matter. But I consulted admin Amatulic at the time and I followed his advice. You follow the advise of people who are supposed to understand whatever problem you have, and what else can you do? When I checked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#Kauffner_circumventing_deletion_of_Amanda_Filipacchi_attack_page the ANI archive], I noticed that my remarks have been redacted, not only from the archive but also from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=555649757 the page history]. So an oversighter may be manipulating the record. In any case, the original discussion is still in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&oldid=555311398#My_user_page_keeps_getting_blanked Amatulic’s page history].

I know there is a lot of hard feeling about the [[User:PeterKa/Filipacchi | Amanda Filipacchi matter]]. But I consulted admin Amatulic at the time and I followed his advice. You follow the advise of people who are supposed to understand whatever problem you have, and what else can you do? When I checked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#Kauffner_circumventing_deletion_of_Amanda_Filipacchi_attack_page the ANI archive], I noticed that my remarks have been redacted, not only from the archive but also from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=555649757 the page history]. So an oversighter may be manipulating the record. In any case, the original discussion is still in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&oldid=555311398#My_user_page_keeps_getting_blanked Amatulic’s page history].

Cuchullain was the admin most active in seeking to get me banned or sanctioned. In the banning discussion, he writes that I, “dodged sanctions so many times before” and that I “have been disruptive for years.” In other words, the editors who banned me considered the discussion to be a continuation of earlier disputes. These earlier disputes were about Vietnamese diacritics, not Han-Nom or edit warring. As I was able to defend myself on these occasions, none of them resulted in a block, ban, or other sanction. So blocking me prior to the discussion was essential to allow a different result.

Cuchullain was the admin most active in seeking to get me banned or sanctioned. In the banning discussion, he writes that I, “dodged sanctions so many times before” and that I “have been disruptive for years.” In other words, the editors who banned me considered the discussion to be a continuation of earlier disputes. These earlier disputes were about Vietnamese diacritics, not Han-Nom or edit warring. As I was able to defend myself on these occasions, none of them resulted in a block, ban, or other sanction. So blocking me prior to the discussion was essential to allow a different result.