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 made 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)[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]