Changes

:IIO and I used to translate foreign language titles to English together. This partnership lasted until June 2012, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay GoodDay was topic banned over diacritics]. The editors who had been involved in that case may have seen my case as a way to continue their pro-diacritics campaign. 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 disagreed with in the past as well material to use against me, but he also sends warnings to anyone who might support my position. He is supported by Cuchullain, an admin with no interest in Vietnam or its diacritics. His complaint is that I had some sort of privileged status that I didn’t deserve. I was never even a rollbacker, I don’t know where this idea comes from.

:IIO and I used to translate foreign language titles to English together. This partnership lasted until June 2012, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay GoodDay was topic banned over diacritics]. The editors who had been involved in that case may have seen my case as a way to continue their pro-diacritics campaign. 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 disagreed with in the past as well material to use against me, but he also sends warnings to anyone who might support my position. He is supported by Cuchullain, an admin with no interest in Vietnam or its diacritics. His complaint is that I had some sort of privileged status that I didn’t deserve. I was never even a rollbacker, I don’t know where this idea comes from.

:After IIO complained that I had moved the Vietnamese city of Can Tho to a non-diacritic title, MSGJ blocked me. As I had made this move over nine months earlier, 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 discussion at ANI. Although this was just a rehashed of old accusations, I was not allowed to defend myself this time around. So the result was a ban.

:After IIO complained that I had moved the Vietnamese city of Can Tho to a non-diacritic title, MSGJ blocked me. As I had made this move over nine months earlier, 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 yet another ANI discussion. Although this was just a rehashed of old accusations, I was not allowed to defend myself this time around. So the result was a ban.

*'''It was entrapment'''. My article on Sino-Vietnamese characters has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and anything else remotely resembling a hot-button issue. These characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. Several editors involved whad not previously made Vietnam-related edits, but nonetheless developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. I assume this group was assembled by IIO through email. These editors had a 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 tempt me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never exceed the three-revert limit, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions WP:3RRNO], page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction.

*'''It was entrapment'''. My article on Sino-Vietnamese characters has nothing to do with diacritics, politics, and anything else remotely resembling a hot-button issue. These characters get so little attention that I had to base much of the content on Vietnamese-language sources. Several editors involved whad not previously made Vietnam-related edits, but nonetheless developed an odd interest in this obscure subject simultaneously. I assume this group was assembled by IIO through email. These editors had a 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 tempt me into violating the 3RR rule. Although I never exceed the three-revert limit, I was blocked for “edit warring” all the same. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#3RR_exemptions WP:3RRNO], page blanking is a form of “obvious vandalism.” So I should have been able to revert without sanction.