User talk:Kauffner

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive and tendentious editing and continued edit-warring. Per our discussion above you returned to the same article and performed the same edit that resulted in your previous block despite knowing it was against the current consensus to do so. You continue to label those that disagree with you as vandals and accuse other editors of harassment, which is a form or personal attack. I provided plenty of opportunity for you to simply revert your restoration of the article and seek consensus, however you have chosen not to do so and therefore you have been blocked for 2 weeks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kauffner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a two-week block for a single edit that reverted a page blanking.[1] "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits...such as page blanking", is explicitly given as an exception to the 3RR principle in WP:3RRNO. Even if I reverted these blankings four times a day, which I never have, I would still be following the guideline. If this article was really "against consensus", it would have been deleted at AFD a long time ago. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Restoring a redirect is not blanking, and is therefore not vandalism, and is therefore not exempt. The block is valid in face, and there's no valid reason for unblock provided in the unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The blanking exception only applies if the blanking is an act of defacement. Redirecting an article as a result of the discussion is not vandalism, even if the others are wrong in claiming consensus (no comment on whether they are or not). You don't have an exemption here. But I'm going to leave your unblock request for another admin to answer because I think it best we get more eyes than just mine and Ponyo's on this situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kauffner, your unblock request fails on two fronts; the most glaring is that the restoration of a redirect is not "blanking", and as you have been told before, it is not vandalism. Your contention that the editors restoring the redirect are "vandals" and your continued habit of calling them so is against NPA, as are your repeated accusations (such as at the recent ANI thread) of harassment, stalking, and purposeful destruction of your work. You have turned this into a war with yourself playing the role of victim instead of pursuing dispute resolution and abiding by consensus even if it doesn't work in your favour. A redirect is a completely valid outcome of a discussion, and you dictating that it either must be kept or go through AfD is not supported in practice or by policy. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Han-Nom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Han-Nom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han-Nom until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MergerDude (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I know no one asked for my opinion on this issue. But here it is anyway:

• I wrote this article. But I sure wish I didn't. It can't be deleted because the material I wrote is now incorporated into chu Nom? My material was swiped, the original blanked, and my objections were used as a pretext to block me. Yet Kanguole makes it sound like I should feel honored. The attribution issue can be resolved with a dummy edit, so this rationale is just nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It can't be "deleted deleted", but it can be redirected, that preserves the attribution, and at a minimum han-nom is certainly a valid redirect term for chu-nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

• Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project

• WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales

• Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south

• Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

• Featured content: The week of the birds

• Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)