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]

Kauffner, what's going to fly with me is not the point; it's what's going to fly with the community. I really don't know anything about the Filippachi concerns, but I doubt they would matter that much. If it were possible to erase all memory of that incident, I'm pretty sure your socking alone would get you a community ban. That happens routinely to people who sock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Berlin Central Station has nothing to do with why I was blocked, or with the banning proposal. If you are just combing though my edit history, there is a lot of that you know. Kauffner (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, I'm trying to understand what's going on here and a way to defend you because I want you to stay around and continue contributing, but you're not making any sense. I know about being viewed and treated unfairly by people who disagree with me, but if you don't stay on the high road, they will take you down. You have to take the high road, always. Period. Resorting to sockpuppetry is not that, or is being evasive and vague in your defense. --B2C 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could have avoided the early blocks if I had been smarter about things. But once Ponyo came down on me, this account was toast. You should read the stuff he wrote. He was vindictive and bullying from the beginning. I never had any contact with him before this episode. So there is an agenda that hasn't been disclosed to me. Kauffner (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bothered by the apparent disassociation of yourself and "this account" and the use of broad and vague accusations without addressing specifics. If there is case to defend you, I have not seen it. Even the sockpuppet charges are barely acknowledged. As far as undisclosed agendas, don't flatter yourself. --B2C 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if this is naivety, or an act. But this sort of thing has certainly happened before. A similar strategy has been used against JoshuSasori back in January. IIO and Cuchullain were both involved in that episode as well. Now they are better at it. Even before my Han-Nom article was attacked, I’d already considered what I would do if someone pulled a JoshuSasori on me. The plan seemed to be working until EdJohnston got bent out of shape by my Duc Duc move. Well, you can’t see it all coming, I suppose. Kauffner (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the incident with the dragon, IIO was barely involved. He happened to vote against JS in an RM or two because he agreed with me while JS voted against whether he agreed with me or not, just because he doesn't like me. I don't recall any other place IIO was involved with the JS incident. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the overblown rhetoric against me continues at AN, I will make some further response. I have been contributing continuously since 2005, so I am almost a founding father. Sometimes dinosaurs need to move on, but no one has actually made that argument. The common view seems to be that my entire editing career was disruptive. I certainly have various good articles, DYKs, article creations and the like. I do not post a public list because I have been stalked for over a year now, and I do not want other articles to become targets like Han-Nom was. The complaints against me are certainly a diverse group. Several editors cite the joke about Filipacchi I posted on my user page back in May. I have history with several of the other people voting, and I take the old grievances are still alive. I was long active in RMs and made various notable proposals, including Côte d'Ivoire-to-Ivory Coast. I eventually stopped making such proposals on account of Cuchullain's repeated harassment. Favonian has been ticked off at me since my attempt to promote numeric category keys years ago. Kauffner (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SVG of ⿰礻兼

A couple of months ago and on your engaging request I created an SVG of the character ⿰礻兼 which I uploaded to the Commons. However due to repeated bans by fellow Wikipedians holding a combination of functions as amateur lawmakers, detectives, prosecutors and judges you haven’t been able to make use of this image. Would it make sense if I did so in your stead? — PS: IMHO you are one of the abler encyclopedists, and I wish to have you back before long — which I think requires you to let bygones be bygones and look ahead. Don’t waste your precious energy on them. LiliCharlie 08:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your kind words. I was sent to Dalat for a project there, so I've been busy in the real world for the last few weeks. The character you created looks a bit different than the one that is currently being used:

Is there a source for either version? The original must be in this manuscript (a history of Vietnam to the end of the Le dynasty), as well as this one ("includes the history of Le Chieu Thong"). Perhaps somebody who reads Classical Chinese can figure it out. (The first text is bilingual Han and Nom, while the second is Nom -- disproving yet again the claim that no serious writing was done in Nom.) Kauffner (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of my SVG is the wrongly encoded character u+60D01 of the Nom Na Tong font: 񠴁. — It is extremely difficult to tell what “serious writing” is. At one time in Europe only literature in praise of God seems to have been taken seriously, and the only topic of the earliest Chinese texts was divination. So what? It is definitely better to be descriptive than to pass questionable judgements on cultures or eras you didn’t grow up in.LiliCharlie 03:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nom Na Tong certainly looks nicer than the .svg (or the current .jpg). So the idea is to make the .svg look as much like the current image as possible? In the late 19th century, the restrictions on Nom were lifted and every kind of writing appeared in Vietnamese. Even under hard-line Confucian rulers, there must have been some accommodation for the fact that very few Vietnamese would have known enough Chinese to read Han. In any case, this idea that Nom wasn't for serious writing has been used to take the "Nom" out of "Han-Nom." Kauffner (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banned

Per community consensus, you are hereby indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The banning discussion has a link to a discussion of my essay on Filipacchi, two to this page, and no diffs or specific allegations beyond that. If only every discussion on Wikipedia had decision making of this quality. Kauffner (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, about 45,000 people viewed AN while your ban proposal was up, and not a single one took the time to oppose it. I don't know any other way to make it clear to you that you're not welcome here, and no matter how much you complain that we're all out to get you... You're the only one who's complaining. It reminds me of the old joke where the guy's driving down the highway backwards, and insists that everyone else is. At some point, you have to honestly ask yourself "Which is more likely, that every single person who's !voted to ban me, block me, or delete one of my pages has been wrong, or that I've been wrong?" — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you speak for 45,000 people? I'm impressed. Kauffner (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see him saying that. You're comments only make the driving backwards analogy at least look more apt.--Merbabu (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the 45,000 might have appreciate my use of humor in explaining the category system. They might even support the use of English-language naming and typography in titles related to Germany or Vietnam. Either way, all we know is that they were too lazy to apply their fat fingers to their keyboards and explain themselves. Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

READ the responses in the AN thread, here and elsewhere. If you keep on ignoring the explanations then you will never be un-banned. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD lusog 05:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just got sassed by someone with 918 edits. Just think: If I'm banned for 40 years or so, you may have a chance to catch up. If I was mentored by Jackson Peebles, I'm not sure I'd put on my user page. Guy looks like he just started shaving. Kauffner (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better, I'm almost at 10k (almost 18k globally), and I've only been here 9 months. But lets stop measuring dicks before this becomes any nastier than it already is. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are the son of Michael Kelly, who, as a result of an unfortunate sequence of events, has turned out all Francophile and uber-gay? Your dad was a fine writer, something you certainly don't need me to tell you. You have.......still time to get back on track. Kauffner (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this matters, but I'm never one to turn down a chance to talk about myself. So, umm... I don't see what's wrong with liking French, nor with being gay. It was, admittedly, dumb to have my username center on those two things, which is why I changed it. But I consider myself a competent writer; I'm not sure what you mean by "time to get back on track." I'm an intern at The Atlantic, so I'm definitely following in my father's footsteps... And considering my French has already come in handy there, and we're always writing something or other on gay issues, I don't see either of those as a liability.

But enough about me. Let's talk some more about you. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 02:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

Traffic report: Reddit creep

Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics and "conspiracy"

It was denounced as a conspiracy theory when I suggested it, but I see I'm not the only one who assumes that the real reason I was blocked and banned relates to my views on diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]