User talk:Kauffner

Back in June, I was a top Wikipedia contributer with a clean record. (I was ranked No. 1455, to be exact.) A few weeks later, I had an indefinite block. I never got a warning template, nor was my case ever considered at ANI, Arbcom, or DRM. In short, it was a straight up hit job. IP vandals get more due process than I did. If any other editor has ever been blocked for reverting the blanking of an article he wrote, it has escaped my notice.

I don’t see anything controversial about the article in question myself, and I find it unlikely anyone would object to it if someone other than me had written it.

Blocks

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are valid 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.

Employing the User:TenMuses account to continue an edit war on diacritics in Vietnamese article names. Per the evidence at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 18 June 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:

"In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved," per WP:INVOLVED. User:EdJohnston has been involved in my case, to say the least. This post suggests that he blocked me because I reversed his move of Duc Duc, and also because he wants to blackmail me on the issue Vietnamese article titles in general. If that's not involvement enough, he recently closed this RM over my objections and page move protected Hồ Dynasty for a full year.[1] This is in spite of the fact that no one requested such protection. I note that EdJohnston has been taking action at the prompting of User:In ictu oculi, as you can see here and here. IIO has been Wiki-stalking me and forumshopping the Vietnamese title issue for a long time now. I checked the SPI archive, and EdJohnston did block a couple of sockpuppets a year and two years ago. But it does not appear he ordinarily patrols SPI or resolves cases of this kind. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, would you prefer it if I (a) unblocked, and then (b) reblocked based upon the evidence EdJohnston has presented (and the results of my own checkuser)? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:58, 19 June 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.

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.[2] "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.

Misrepresentation of block

Your indefinite block is due to repeated sockpuppetry, not reversion. Your article was not "blanked" it was redirected, per multiple consensus based discussions, which you refused to abide by. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[reply]

Kauffner, I have removed from this page your addition of the wholesale cut and paste of the article that ultimately led to your block. While indefinitely blocked you retain talk page access in order to post unblock requests, not to make pointy edits and rewrite history to reflect your skewed and inaccurate version of events. If you continue to use your talk page in this manner your ability to edit it will be revoked. It's unfortunate that your time away from the project has failed to allow for some introspection - if you cannot see that your own actions are what led to you to your current block then I doubt you will ever be unblocked. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not like I worry about access to my talk page. I gave an accurate account of what happened to me in the hope that someone else can learn from it. I don't have any obligation to abide by the "consensus" of two or three editors on a talk page to blank an article I wrote. From the discussion at AN, I take it these blocks have more to do with the Filipacchi episode than with Han-Nom. So I'm being banned for a joke I put on my user page back in May. Good grief. Kauffner (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do have an obligation to abide by that WP:CONSENSUS, you don't WP:OWN any articles, whether you wrote them or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I have to wonder why we have AFD and rules against blanking. Most of the people involved were just looking for a way to get at me. Kauffner (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were actually looking for ways to get at you (note my scepticism), your sock-puppetry certainly gave it to them. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here I thought your specialty was vicious name calling. I had no idea you felt so superior. Kauffner (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - you are good at misrepresentations. But thanks for the link as it shows what really happened. My (admittedly uninvited) advice was to stop the sock puppetry if you wanted to change the situation. --Merbabu (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)I[reply]

I take it that your "defense" is that you sincerely believe I am bigot. But that's really neither here nor there. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think I'm defending. I just didn't think it was highly collaborative or constructive to call Muslims savages or to offer those you suspect of being MUslims beer and pork. I called them bigoted comments. From here, others can judge the merits of what was said. --Merbabu (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone familiar with East Timorese history should be able to figure out what I meant by "savagery." "East Timor" savagery 1975" gives you over 1,000 GBook hits, so I am not the only person who thinks this way. As for the other stuff, I have no idea what your talking about. Perhaps you have me confused with somebody else. Kauffner (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, cannot make sense of what is going on here. There is one comment saying there was a block for sockpuppetry, not reversion. But I see no standard information about who the sockpuppets are, etc. Then there is another comment that refers to "the article that ultimately led to your block". What does that have to do with sockpuppetry? --B2C 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sock puppet cases are here. --Merbabu (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Despite the lies currently be told about me at AN, I never voted more than once in an RM. No where in the SPI file does anyone make a claim of this kind. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying you used multiple accounts to vote twice. You used multiple accounts, repeatedly, to evade your block. Your failure to understand that AFD is not required to redirect an article is an ultimate WP:CIR issue. There were multiple discussions. Those discussions went against you. You don't have to like it, but you do have to abide by it. Your unwillingness to do so has led you to your current situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go check AN. This multiple voting nonsense is being cited as a reason to ban me. As for consensus, it requires at least a closed discussion. Kauffner (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting that statement. The "Get your way" is not a reference to multiple voting, but in reference attempting to continue to edit contrary to the consensus (or reopen discussions) from multiple accounts. There were multiple discussions. consensus was clear. Because you do not like the way in which a discussion was held does not mean the discussion was invalid. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this interpretation strained to say the least. But I suppose you can always ask her. I'm pretty sure you never even read the article, so I find it hard to believe that this is actually about Vietnamese writing. Are you enforcing feminist orthodoxy? That doesn't seem to jib with your user page. Kauffner (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response to proposed banning

In response the lie festival currently going on WP:AN, I'd like to make the following points.

I never voted twice in an RM or RFC. I was being vigorously stalked, and I tried to evade the stalking.
Most of those involved in AN discussion know about me only from the Filipacchi affair. Although JohnPackLambert can be forgiven, I take the hit.
In eight years on Wiki, I never called another editor a "bigot" or "savage", or disparaged their religion.
Han-Nom, the article that provided the pretext to block me, is a heavily sourced account of the history of Vietnamese writing. There is nothing in it about gender relations or Muslims. I find unlikely anyone would object to it if someone other than me wrote it. Kauffner (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I was being vigorously stalked, and I tried to evade the stalking." Ah, so that's your grounds for using multiple accounts? Sorry, that's not going to fly. It flies afoul of creating an illusion of support (in at least that Berlin Station case, your support for one choice was known from a previous move discussion, then one of your socks took part in the more recent discussion, giving the illusion of two editors when there was really one), and definitely of WP:EVASION. And I'm pretty sure that's the real reason you are getting community banned. The community is not very forgiving of sockmasters, and you've shown no sign of stopping. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filipacchi and multiple voting appear to be the two main complaints about me at AN, so I addressed them. I don't expect anything I write to "fly" with someone who thinks that restoring an article is reason enough to block me. Kauffner (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, forgive me for being blunt, but your best option for ever returning to editing in any form is to stop digging the hole you're in deeper. Looking at this the only conclusions I can draw are that you're either not understanding the issues editors have with you, or you're deliberately choosing not to, and even if your original block had been vindictive your conduct since it has destroyed any chance of it being lifted short of the WP:STANDARDOFFER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I don't see how I have anything to lose by speaking my mind. If you were stalked from forum to forum for a year by someone who took apart your articles, you might understand how I feel. I am not asking to be unblocked, and who needs an account where I'd just stalked again anyway? Kauffner (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your user page, I feel the need for further comment. Several editors are openly voting against me on account of Filipacchi. There is no way all those admins would know who I was if it wasn't for my essay on this subject, so it's the likely reason for the people who are being coy as well. Yet you've come up with a formula that allows you to evade the ideological issue. I hope you know what are doing. Kauffner (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]