Time for a diacritics amnesty?
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:27 pm
Perhaps the new Arbcom will have a new attitude. Anyway, I'm drafting my appeal. I think I can claim the most extreme shafting: A senior contributor summarily blocked and banned with no specific reason given, no opportunity to defend myself, and apparently based on the accumulation of petty grudges over the years. Or at least that’s what I argue below.
TO: Ban Appeals Subcommittee
Last June, I was a Wikipedia editor with eight years experience, tens of thousands of edits, and a clean record. I had written several “good” articles, DYKs, and contributed to a feature article. Yet I was blocked and banned without warning or due process. Whether my ban can be reversed or not, I’d like to discuss how I was railroaded in the hope that the episode may contain lessons that others can learn.
On July 8 and 11, I was blocked for “edit warring” on an article I wrote called Han-Nom. (The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563875554) I was block for reverted the repeated blanking of this article, something which is specifically permitted under the guidelines. (See [[WP:3RRNO]]). At no point did I exceed the 3RR limit. I was not given a warning prior to either block. This is not only irregular according to Wiki guidelines, but means that I never had a chance to argue my case at ANI. Han-Nom is an extensively sourced article on Sino-Vietnamese characters. I find it hard to believe that it would have been controversial if someone other than me had written it. The involvement of editors not otherwise interested in Vietnam-related topics suggests that the motive was to get back at me over other issues.
Ponyo, a checkuser and oversighter I had never dealt with before, posted a series of comments just before and after blocking me, including several expressing satisfaction at my predicament. He heatedly denied that he was acting in conspiracy with others, although I had not accused him of this. If he was recruited, it occurs to me that an incident in June in which I ticked off EdJohnston might be relevant. Tell Ed I’m sorry I reverted his [[Duc Duc]] move.
My block was made permanent in August by a community ban. (See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner]]) The Han-Nom block prevented me from participating in this discussion, yet the issue is barely mentioned. Writing articles is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. It is perverse that this article could be used against me.
Disciplinary discussions I have read on typically consist of allegations, diffs to support these allegations, and a discussion of the seriousness of the alleged misbehavior. But there is nothing like that in my case. There is one clueless post that accuses me of multiple voting in RMs, and another one that cites a parody I posted on my user page back in May. I take it these two editors were not in the loop. Otherwise, there are no specific allegations, much less diffs to support them.
Cuchullain was the admin most active in seeking to get me banned or sanctioned. In the banning discussion, he writes that I, “dodged sanctions so many times before” and that I “have been disruptive for years.” In other words, the editors who banned me considered the discussion to be a continuation of earlier disputes. These earlier disputes were about Vietnamese diacritics, not Han-Nom or edit warring. As I was able to defend myself on these occasions, none of them resulted in a block, ban, or other sanction. So blocking me prior the discussion was essential to allow a different result.
Let me back up at this point and explain some history. In July and August of 2011, there was an RFC on diacritics with a very large participation. (See [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Diacritics_RfC]]) This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of Britannica and National Geographic. Although these two sources represent the most diacritic-friendly styles models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Such diacritics are “distracting,” according to National Geographic’s Style Manual. (See http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/A/accent-marks). The proposal was opposed by editors who considered it too diacritics friendly, and it was finally defeated in a hotly contested vote. Although the discussion suggested that opinion was divided on the issue of diacritics in general, I interpreted it as an indication that a consensus existed with respect to Vietnamese diacritics. I then rewrote [[Naming conventions (Vietnamese)]] and moved various articles to comply. This version of the guideline that I wrote was in effect throughout this controversy. In fact, it was not rewritten until Sept. 2.
“Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works),” according to WP:DIACRITICS. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the common name of a subject. The common name plus a French or German accent mark is still pretty close to the common name. But Vietnamese diacritics are more intense than those of any other language.
No major reference work uses Vietnamese diacritics, as you can see from this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =558512069. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends following the spellings given in the various Merriam-Webster dictionaries, so note the column on the far right. In my opinion, a well-regarded overview of the broad subject one is writing about should also be consulted. (This approach is supported by WP:WIAN, third point.) In the case of Vietnam, that would include works like Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (1993) and Shelton Woods’ Vietnam: An Illustrated History (2002). None of the considerations I've mentioned would suggest the use of Vietnamese diacritics.
When a publication has Vietnamese writers and a primarily Vietnamese readership, it would easier for everyone involved if the diacritics were left in. Yet every English-language news site in Vietnam drops them out. Why? Because the point of such sites is to model conventional language usage, not to promote Viet-lish. The most widely read of these sites is Voice of Vietnam (http://english.vov.vn). The site’s international style and lack of localisms are selling points, even though the readership is overwhelmingly Vietnamese.
In ictu oculi and I once worked as a team, translating Hebrew and Latin titles in English. But Arbcom’s decision to sanction GoodDay over diacritics in June 2012 changed all that. (See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay]]) This decision effectively turned the diacritics area into a free-fire zone. The Vietnam project had been my pond up to this point. But IIO and other editors soon arrived and turned it into a hotly contested area. IIO, who has an extraordinary amount of time and energy to devote to this issue, researched my edit history and wrote lengthy complaints day after day, often presenting old moves as fresh outrages. To me, these complaints were transparently vindictive, harassment and provocation done in the hope of getting a scalp and because it had worked with GoodDay. I was blocked by MSGJ in July 2012 in response to one such complaint. On this occasion, Jenks24 intervened on my behalf. Unfortunately, Jenks24 stopped editing in April 2013.
This RFC may give you a sense of IIO’s methods: [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)/Archive_2#RfC_on_spelling]]. It is filled with pictures galleries, heated attacks on the validity of the RFC, bitter recriminations, and other disruptive tactics. Each post sounds more angry than the last. IIO later posted a series of Vietnam-related requests. I call these “attack RMs," since their focus was on bashing me rather than on article titles. Bullies who are not necessarily concerned with the underlying style issue are attracted to this area by IIO’s aggression. This has triggered a sequence of anti-social behavior, forcing a series of editors to leave Wikipedia, including MakeSense, LittleBenW, and JoshuSasori.
---User:Kauffner
TO: Ban Appeals Subcommittee
Last June, I was a Wikipedia editor with eight years experience, tens of thousands of edits, and a clean record. I had written several “good” articles, DYKs, and contributed to a feature article. Yet I was blocked and banned without warning or due process. Whether my ban can be reversed or not, I’d like to discuss how I was railroaded in the hope that the episode may contain lessons that others can learn.
On July 8 and 11, I was blocked for “edit warring” on an article I wrote called Han-Nom. (The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =563875554) I was block for reverted the repeated blanking of this article, something which is specifically permitted under the guidelines. (See [[WP:3RRNO]]). At no point did I exceed the 3RR limit. I was not given a warning prior to either block. This is not only irregular according to Wiki guidelines, but means that I never had a chance to argue my case at ANI. Han-Nom is an extensively sourced article on Sino-Vietnamese characters. I find it hard to believe that it would have been controversial if someone other than me had written it. The involvement of editors not otherwise interested in Vietnam-related topics suggests that the motive was to get back at me over other issues.
Ponyo, a checkuser and oversighter I had never dealt with before, posted a series of comments just before and after blocking me, including several expressing satisfaction at my predicament. He heatedly denied that he was acting in conspiracy with others, although I had not accused him of this. If he was recruited, it occurs to me that an incident in June in which I ticked off EdJohnston might be relevant. Tell Ed I’m sorry I reverted his [[Duc Duc]] move.
My block was made permanent in August by a community ban. (See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive252#Ban_proposal:_Kauffner]]) The Han-Nom block prevented me from participating in this discussion, yet the issue is barely mentioned. Writing articles is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. It is perverse that this article could be used against me.
Disciplinary discussions I have read on typically consist of allegations, diffs to support these allegations, and a discussion of the seriousness of the alleged misbehavior. But there is nothing like that in my case. There is one clueless post that accuses me of multiple voting in RMs, and another one that cites a parody I posted on my user page back in May. I take it these two editors were not in the loop. Otherwise, there are no specific allegations, much less diffs to support them.
Cuchullain was the admin most active in seeking to get me banned or sanctioned. In the banning discussion, he writes that I, “dodged sanctions so many times before” and that I “have been disruptive for years.” In other words, the editors who banned me considered the discussion to be a continuation of earlier disputes. These earlier disputes were about Vietnamese diacritics, not Han-Nom or edit warring. As I was able to defend myself on these occasions, none of them resulted in a block, ban, or other sanction. So blocking me prior the discussion was essential to allow a different result.
Let me back up at this point and explain some history. In July and August of 2011, there was an RFC on diacritics with a very large participation. (See [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Diacritics_RfC]]) This RFC proposed that Wikipedia follow the style of Britannica and National Geographic. Although these two sources represent the most diacritic-friendly styles models that the authors of the proposal could come up with, neither uses Vietnamese diacritics. Such diacritics are “distracting,” according to National Geographic’s Style Manual. (See http://stylemanual.ngs.org/home/A/accent-marks). The proposal was opposed by editors who considered it too diacritics friendly, and it was finally defeated in a hotly contested vote. Although the discussion suggested that opinion was divided on the issue of diacritics in general, I interpreted it as an indication that a consensus existed with respect to Vietnamese diacritics. I then rewrote [[Naming conventions (Vietnamese)]] and moved various articles to comply. This version of the guideline that I wrote was in effect throughout this controversy. In fact, it was not rewritten until Sept. 2.
“Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works),” according to WP:DIACRITICS. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the common name of a subject. The common name plus a French or German accent mark is still pretty close to the common name. But Vietnamese diacritics are more intense than those of any other language.
No major reference work uses Vietnamese diacritics, as you can see from this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =558512069. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends following the spellings given in the various Merriam-Webster dictionaries, so note the column on the far right. In my opinion, a well-regarded overview of the broad subject one is writing about should also be consulted. (This approach is supported by WP:WIAN, third point.) In the case of Vietnam, that would include works like Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (1993) and Shelton Woods’ Vietnam: An Illustrated History (2002). None of the considerations I've mentioned would suggest the use of Vietnamese diacritics.
When a publication has Vietnamese writers and a primarily Vietnamese readership, it would easier for everyone involved if the diacritics were left in. Yet every English-language news site in Vietnam drops them out. Why? Because the point of such sites is to model conventional language usage, not to promote Viet-lish. The most widely read of these sites is Voice of Vietnam (http://english.vov.vn). The site’s international style and lack of localisms are selling points, even though the readership is overwhelmingly Vietnamese.
In ictu oculi and I once worked as a team, translating Hebrew and Latin titles in English. But Arbcom’s decision to sanction GoodDay over diacritics in June 2012 changed all that. (See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay]]) This decision effectively turned the diacritics area into a free-fire zone. The Vietnam project had been my pond up to this point. But IIO and other editors soon arrived and turned it into a hotly contested area. IIO, who has an extraordinary amount of time and energy to devote to this issue, researched my edit history and wrote lengthy complaints day after day, often presenting old moves as fresh outrages. To me, these complaints were transparently vindictive, harassment and provocation done in the hope of getting a scalp and because it had worked with GoodDay. I was blocked by MSGJ in July 2012 in response to one such complaint. On this occasion, Jenks24 intervened on my behalf. Unfortunately, Jenks24 stopped editing in April 2013.
This RFC may give you a sense of IIO’s methods: [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)/Archive_2#RfC_on_spelling]]. It is filled with pictures galleries, heated attacks on the validity of the RFC, bitter recriminations, and other disruptive tactics. Each post sounds more angry than the last. IIO later posted a series of Vietnam-related requests. I call these “attack RMs," since their focus was on bashing me rather than on article titles. Bullies who are not necessarily concerned with the underlying style issue are attracted to this area by IIO’s aggression. This has triggered a sequence of anti-social behavior, forcing a series of editors to leave Wikipedia, including MakeSense, LittleBenW, and JoshuSasori.
---User:Kauffner
]
- god, these smilies are cute]]