Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
14,282
edits
Changes
add draft
==Daft appeal==
'''To the Ban Committee''':
'''TO: Ban Appeals Subcommittee'''
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 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].
*'''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.
: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.
*'''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.
: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.
*'''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.
In ictu oculi and I once worked as a team, translating Hebrew and Latin titles. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay Arbcom’s decision to sanction GoodDay] over diacritics in June 2012 changed all that. The Vietnam project had been my pond up to this point. But IIO and other editors soon arrived and turned it into a hotly contested area. IIO, who has an extraordinary amount of time and energy to devote to this issue, researched my edit history and wrote lengthy complaints day after day, often presenting old moves as fresh outrages. To me, these complaints were transparently vindictive, provocation done in the hope of getting a scalp, and because this strategy had worked with GoodDay. I was blocked by MSGJ in July 2012 in response to one such complaint. On this occasion, Jenks24 intervened on my behalf. Unfortunately, Jenks24 stopped editing in April 2013.
*'''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.
*'''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:
*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
*Detailed discussion of diacritics: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal
--Kauffner
==Testimonials==
==Testimonials==
<br/><br/>
<br/><br/>
Bermicourt
Bermicourt
==2013 Appeal==
On Dec 13, 2013, I wrote to <arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org> as follows:
'''TO: Ban Appeals Subcommittee'''
Last June, I was a Wikipedia editor with eight years experience, tens of thousands of edits, and a clean record. I had written several “good” articles, DYKs, and contributed to a feature article. Yet I was blocked and banned without warning or due process. Whether my ban can be reversed or not, I’d like to discuss how I was railroaded in the hope that the episode may contain lessons that others can learn.
On July 8 and 11, I was blocked for “edit warring” on an article I wrote called Han-Nom. (The article is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 here].) I was blocked for reverting the repeated blanking of this article, something which is specifically permitted under the guidelines. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRNO#3RR_exemptions WP:3RRNO], point 4). At no point did I exceed the 3RR limit. I was not given a warning prior to either block. This is not only irregular according to Wiki guidelines, but means that I never had a chance to argue my case at ANI. Han-Nom is an extensively sourced article on Sino-Vietnamese characters. I find it hard to believe that it would have been controversial if someone other than me had written it. The involvement of editors not otherwise interested in Vietnam-related topics suggests that the motive was to get back at me over other issues.
My block was made permanent in August by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner a community ban]. The Han-Nom block prevented me from participating in this discussion, yet the issue is barely mentioned. Writing articles is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. It is perverse that this article could be used against me.
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 [[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.
Let me back up at this point and explain some history. In July and August of 2011, there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28use_English%29/Diacritics_RfC 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. Such diacritics are “distracting,” according to ''National Geographic''’s [http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/A/accent-marks Style Manual]. The proposal was opposed by editors who considered it too diacritics friendly, and was finally defeated. Although this discussion suggested that opinion was divided on the issue of diacritics in general, I interpreted it as an indication that a consensus existed with respect to Vietnamese diacritics. I then rewrote the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VIETCON naming conventions for Vietnamese] and moved various articles to comply. The version of the guideline that I wrote was in effect throughout this controversy, and it was not rewritten until Sept. 2.
The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the common name of a subject. The common name plus a French or German accent mark is still pretty close to the common name. But Vietnamese diacritics are more intense than those of any other language.
No major reference work uses Vietnamese diacritics, as you can see from [[User:PeterKa/Diacritics_proposal | this chart]]. ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' recommends following the spellings given in the various Merriam-Webster dictionaries, so note the column on the far right. “Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works),” according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DIACRITICS#Modified_letters WP:DIACRITICS].
In ictu oculi and I once worked as a team, translating Hebrew and Latin titles. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay Arbcom’s decision to sanction GoodDay] over diacritics in June 2012 changed all that. The Vietnam project had been my pond up to this point. But IIO and other editors soon arrived and turned it into a hotly contested area. IIO, who has an extraordinary amount of time and energy to devote to this issue, researched my edit history and wrote lengthy complaints day after day, often presenting old moves as fresh outrages. To me, these complaints were transparently vindictive, provocation done in the hope of getting a scalp, and because this strategy had worked with GoodDay. I was blocked by MSGJ in July 2012 in response to one such complaint. On this occasion, Jenks24 intervened on my behalf. Unfortunately, Jenks24 stopped editing in April 2013.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Vietnamese%29/Archive_2#RfC_on_spelling This RFC] may give you a sense of IIO’s methods. It is filled with pictures galleries, heated attacks on the validity of the RFC, bitter recriminations, and other disruptive tactics. Each post sounds more angry than the last. IIO later posted a series of Vietnam-related requests. These were attack RMs that focused on bashing me rather than on any article title. Bullies who are not necessarily concerned with the underlying style issue are attracted to this area by IIO’s aggression. This has triggered a chain reaction of anti-social behavior, forcing a series of editors to leave Wikipedia, including MakeSense, LittleBenW, and JoshuSasori.
---User:Kauffner
==Reply==
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:38 PM, Anthony (AGK) <wikiagk@gmail.com> (Message-ID: <CAMLtR47s5dXuAyChksdC7hF-vaG5n2y1vZLKJDUyq_P+yKU6xw@mail.gmail.com>) wrote:
<blockquote>
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has carefully considered your application. We have decided that it would not be in the interests of Wikipedia to unblock your account, and that we are not satisfied the block of your account is no longer required. Therefore, we decline to unblock you at this time and your appeal is dismissed. You may submit another appeal after six months have passed from the date of this message.
<br/><br/>
For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,
Anthony (AGK)
</blockquote>