User talk:Kauffner: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:08, 30 July 2013

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was looking at what happens to other users accused of editing warring. They usually get a templated or something like that. Of course I'm going react if an article I wrote gets blanked -- or am I really supposed to say, "restoration of a redirect"? I googled "restoration of a redirect" site:en.wikipedia.org and got zero hits. In other words, this phrase was created just to use against me. This whole episode reeks of bullying. Kauffner (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you wanted me to template you as a warning instead of taking the time to discuss your actions with you and giving you ample opportunity to revert? Are you also saying that the term "restoring a redirect" on Wikipedia was devised solely as a tool to bully you? Was its use on over a thousand pages on Wikipedia also an attack on you? Your arguments hold no water and are only serving to convince me that the two week block period will not prevent further disruption and edit-warring from you. You seem to believe that individuals who disagree with you or attempt to hold you to Wikipedia policy are all part of some grand conspiracy, and as long as you continue to approach it as such you will never be happy editing here as you will see an enemy in every corner. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take from the above that you think I am thoroughly paranoid, and that I was allowed to make 36,000 edits over eight years without being cited for edit warring before due an unfortunate oversight. You've given someone else a no-warning two-week block for one revert? You certainly seem defensive about it if this is really standard procedure. It's no secret is that if you want to get rid of an editor, you can attack some otherwise obscure article he wrote, and he will of course react. I don't know any policy that says I have to accept a merger whenever two or three editors get together on a talk page and agree among themselves. Finally, I must say that I am most impressed with the credentials on your user page, and flattered by the personal attention I am receiving. Kauffner (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I for one know you are not paranoid about this at all, and have every reason to feel the way you do. Been there on a regular basis with the editor but nothing ever happens with my complaints. Good luck in getting someone to care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Han-Nom AFD

I'm sorry you're disappointed with the result, but it was clear that consensus had already been reached before the AFD even began and nothing you might say at the AFD would be likely to change it. And your block doesn't expire until after the AFD's 7-day period would have been over anyway, so you wouldn't have had a chance to comment anyway. Angr (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are oddly well-versed and opinionated about this particular nomination. I see the occasional vote at AFD, but it does not appear that you ordinarily close this type of discussion. Kauffner (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued sockpuppetry

Your block has been extended to one month from today for continued sockpuppetry. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A month....I guess User:EdJohnston is still holding a grudge on account of the Duc Duc move. Kauffner (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been discovered socking again. If you're not going to edit by the rules, you're not going to be able to edit at all. I've extended your block to indefinite. If you want to be unblocked someday, I suggest you read the standard offer and abide by it, particularly the "NO SOCKING" part. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia need Arbcom or ANI anyway? I am sure things will go more smoothly now that you're in charge. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to appeal this to ArbCom. That option is always available to you at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. But I can pretty surely predict that you aren't going to get any sympathy from them fresh off of socking. As for me being in charge, don't be ridiculous. Any admin would have extended your block after you were caught socking. That's routine at Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may recall, my case was being discussed at ANI at the time of your original three-day block. That counter-ANI block was used to justify a series additional blocks. Ponyo wrote on July 12 that he wanted to extend my block, so perhaps that was that was plan. You've obviously had a grudge against me since this. Kauffner (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I had forgotten the existence of that coversation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read it again. No, there's no grudge there. Nor is there involvement, as I did not get into conflict with you there. I just characterized your behaviour (along with several others'), just as one might when warning a user. But apparently I'm not the only one you accuse of having a grudge, what with your accusation against EdJohnston above. If you're putting me in his company, I'm fine with that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to understand from the above that you had no idea who I was when you blocked me, and that the block was strictly about the Han-Nom article, and nothing to do with diacritics? Kauffner (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you opposed diacritics, sure. I had no memory of having made that particular comment, though. Having re-read it, I note that, while I have indeed seen a lot more battleground behaviour from the anti-diacritic side, I actually don't care a whole heck of a lot about whether diacritics appear in article titles; it's always seemed a pointless fight to me. (The fact that I sign my name with a diacritic has no bearing on that.) As for the second half of your question, yes, that's exactly the case. That block was entirely for edit warring on that article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is a conspiracy, as Ponyo alluded to above. If your real point of view is that writing an article and blanking one are two equally valid methods of contributing to Wikipedia, that would be so clueless. Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

In the media: Wikipedia flamewars

WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India

Traffic report: Gleeless

Featured content: Engineering and the arts

Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 :::::::Am I to understand from the above that you had no idea who I was when you blocked me, and that the block was strictly about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han-Nom&oldid=563875554 Han-Nom] article, and nothing to do with diacritics? [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner#top|talk]]) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 ::::::::I knew you opposed diacritics, sure. I had no memory of having made that particular comment, though. Having re-read it, I note that, while I have indeed seen a lot more battleground behaviour from the anti-diacritic side, I actually don't care a whole heck of a lot about whether diacritics appear in article titles; it's always seemed a pointless fight to me. (The fact that I sign my name with a diacritic has no bearing on that.) As for the second half of your question, yes, that's exactly the case. That block was entirely for edit warring on that article. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::Han-Nom could easily have been a "good article" if I had written it before the supporters of Viet-lish, Deutsche-lish and other such polyglot dialects started stalking me. I have been too notorious to make useful contributions for some time. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner#top|talk]]) 17:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::I hope this is a conspiracy, as Ponyo alluded to above. If your real point of view is that writing an article and blanking one are two equally valid methods of contributing to Wikipedia, that would be so clueless. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner#top|talk]]) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 == ''The Signpost'': 24 July 2013 ==