karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here: 1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such? 2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
I think (1) is obviously "yes" if for no other reason than that the consequences of it being "no" would be totally unacceptable to anyone seriously interested in creating a worthwhile encyclopedia; it is (2) that is the contentious part. I am honestly convinced that deletionists are vandals; there are many who think otherwise.
All I ask is that it either
(a) it be demonstrated that deletionists are not vandals (see my argument at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman&oldi... to find out why I think they are), in which case it would be safe to unblock me immediately (although I would understand a block of up to a week--I'd prefer a week after the particular incident in question, of course, but I can also understand the week beginning on the day it is put in place) because I am not intellectually dishonest and I do not engage in behavior I know is wrong, or
(b) that it be accepted that deletionists are vandals (or that at least it be accepted that this particular argument for why deletionists are vandals has not been refuted, in which case it is not known one way or the other--because after all, lack of refutation does not constitute, in and of itself, constitute proof), in which case I should of course be unblocked outright.
The thing is, karmafist and David Gerard have justified their actions that "it is not acceptable to call someone a 'vandal' simply because he disagrees with you"--and they are correct. What is incorrect is their assumption that I am calling deletionists "vandals" simply because I disagree with them--this is not the case; I am calling them "vandals" because I am honestly convinced that they are (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will change both my thinking and behavior) They may insist otherwise, but they are wrong.
Aw, man, I was gonna go and reblock you for a week again, but now you went and started wikilawyering, and now I can't, in good conscience. You totally should have shut the hell up for once! Oh well.
-Phil
On Dec 18, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
- Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as
such? 2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
I think (1) is obviously "yes" if for no other reason than that the consequences of it being "no" would be totally unacceptable to anyone seriously interested in creating a worthwhile encyclopedia; it is (2) that is the contentious part. I am honestly convinced that deletionists are vandals; there are many who think otherwise.
All I ask is that it either
(a) it be demonstrated that deletionists are not vandals (see my argument at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=30896997#Deletion_IS_vandalism.2 C_even_by_the_.22official.22_definition to find out why I think they are), in which case it would be safe to unblock me immediately (although I would understand a block of up to a week--I'd prefer a week after the particular incident in question, of course, but I can also understand the week beginning on the day it is put in place) because I am not intellectually dishonest and I do not engage in behavior I know is wrong, or
(b) that it be accepted that deletionists are vandals (or that at least it be accepted that this particular argument for why deletionists are vandals has not been refuted, in which case it is not known one way or the other--because after all, lack of refutation does not constitute, in and of itself, constitute proof), in which case I should of course be unblocked outright.
The thing is, karmafist and David Gerard have justified their actions that "it is not acceptable to call someone a 'vandal' simply because he disagrees with you"--and they are correct. What is incorrect is their assumption that I am calling deletionists "vandals" simply because I disagree with them-- this is not the case; I am calling them "vandals" because I am honestly convinced that they are (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will change both my thinking and behavior) They may insist otherwise, but they are wrong. -- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
<snip all the ranting>
You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't try to get around it.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
<snip all the ranting>
You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
Kmweber's block log seems to show a different history of events than Karmafist's user log:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Karmafist
The latter has both the four month and indefinite blocks which Kmweber has complained about here:
2005-12-18 19:09:49 Karmafist blocked "User:kmweber" with an expiry time of indefinite (See WP:AN/I)
2005-12-16 22:20:07 Karmafist blocked "User:kmweber" with an expiry time of 4 months (Spree of afd npa vios after being blocked for the same thing, WP:POINT, WP:NOT vio)
G'day Stephen,
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
<snip all the ranting>
You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't try to get around it.
Difficult as it is to defend Kurt, I was under the impression that this *was* one of the proper channels.
Don't we tell people, if you can't get a different admin to unblock you probably deserve to be blocked? Seems a bit unfair to then say to a blocked user that he shouldn't have come to a list he knows admins-other-than-the-blocker read and ask to be unblocked.
On 12/19/05, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Stephen,
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely. He and David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
<snip all the ranting>
You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u...
Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't try to get around it.
Difficult as it is to defend Kurt, I was under the impression that this *was* one of the proper channels.
Don't we tell people, if you can't get a different admin to unblock you probably deserve to be blocked? Seems a bit unfair to then say to a blocked user that he shouldn't have come to a list he knows admins-other-than-the-blocker read and ask to be unblocked.
It is indeed a proper channel; it appears that I've been fooled by a lowercase k: It seems Karmafist blocked User:kmweber (with lowercase k), whereas I had only checked the logs for User:Kmweber (with uppercase K). You can't even check the logs for lowercase k, it puts it to uppercase for you. I don't even know if blocks still work when the capitalisation is wrong.
Anyway, since User:Kmweber was not blocked indefinitely, I presumed that Kurt must have had his IP autoblocked for trying to get around a block. That would have meant that he was trying to do something he shouldn't have been doing (evading a block) rather than engaging in constructive conversation.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
- Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such?
- If so, then are deletionists vandals?
1) is obviously true. 2) depends entirely on your definition of "deletionists". I visited AN/I to see the basis for Karmafist's block and checked the diffs provided. All of them were to AfDs, were "block" messages (the same message copied/pasted from page to page), and clearly were not made with respect to the actual content of the article, but were made in order to make a WP:POINT. Nominating articles for deletion because they don't meet the long-established guidelines of WP for notability does NOT make someone a deletionist, nor a vandal. It makes them attentive editors who pay attention to the guidelines. A deletionist, in my book, is someone who deletes content that is informative and helpful, and meets WP guidelines, for the sake of making a point or otherwise - as such, what they advocate is as bad as what you're doing at the moment. I strongly urge you to take a step back. The purpose of AfD is not to allow editors to make a point, but to analyze each article's content and its meeting of Wikipedia's guidelines. If it does not meet them, it should be removed until it CAN meet WP's guidelines.
However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user in danger — I think we can all agree that is not the case here). That type of block is, in my opinion, pretty clearly meant to only be handed down by the ArbCom. The WP:BP makes provisions for if a user's block is agreed to by consensus, but that is clearly not the case here, since Karmafist re-blocked Kurt even after he was unblocked by an admin uninvolved with the conflict.
Regards, [[User:Bbatsell]]
Brock Batsell wrote:
However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user in danger — I think we can all agree that is not the case here).
There is also a provision under 'Disruption' for blocking someone whose personal attacks are SO pervasive that they disrupt wikipedia. I believe some admins blocked Bigdaddy777 under that provision. However, that has a maximum duration of one month even after repeated offenses.
From: Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com
However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user in danger I think we can all agree that is not the case here). That type of block is, in my opinion, pretty clearly meant to only be handed down by the ArbCom. The WP:BP makes provisions for if a user's block is agreed to by consensus, but that is clearly not the case here, since Karmafist re-blocked Kurt even after he was unblocked by an admin uninvolved with the conflict.
[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption]]:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks. Users should be warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption]]:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, and excessive personal attacks. Users should be warned before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption
Jay.
Indeed. I realize that that policy is there, but in my opinion, this was not a case of 'excessive personal attacks'; in fact, the attacks were far from personal considering they were form letters. This was a case of abusing WP:POINT. I'm most certainly not arguing against a block, one is necessary. A block of 4 months, however, is clearly out of line and against policy.
Regards, [[User:Bbatsell]]
On Monday 19 December 2005 16:08, Brock Batsell wrote:
Indeed. I realize that that policy is there, but in my opinion, this was not a case of 'excessive personal attacks'; in fact, the attacks were far from personal considering they were form letters. This was a case of abusing WP:POINT. I'm most certainly not arguing against a block, one is necessary. A block of 4 months, however, is clearly out of line and against policy.
Thank you.
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Thank you.
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
I have discussed the block with several administrators and there's more history there than I realized. Your edits were disruptive, as I said before, and you had been blocked twice before for the same reason. Since you ignored the first section of my e-mail regarding the validity of your use of the word deletionist (which you have ignored in the past), I won't be defending you any longer in AN/I.
Regards, [[User:Bbatsell]]
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 08:56, Brock Batsell wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Thank you.
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
I have discussed the block with several administrators and there's more history there than I realized. Your edits were disruptive, as I said before, and you had been blocked twice before for the same reason.
Yes, I have been blocked twice before for the same behavior. I resumed it because, both times, after giving the involved admins plenty of time to explain why my behavior was wrong, I got no answer; thus, I made the conclusion that they had conceded defeat. I'm aware that karmafist has accused me of simply "gaming the system" and trying to make him look bad; you should be aware that he cannot read minds and has no way of knowing my actual intent or motives.
I do dispute your claim that they were "disruptive", but that's neither here nor there.
Since you ignored the first section of my e-mail regarding the validity of your use of the word deletionist
The most recent email made no mention of that as far as I can see; the one before that (which was received early Monday morning CST) I had simply overlooked until now.
Anyway, if all that is necessary for a user to be blocked is for a particular admin to assert that certain behavior is unacceptable, without having to explain, then I am willing to put up with that. The lesson learned here has been more one of how Wikipedia really works than that my behavior was wrong (you're the only one who has made any attempt to explain why the latter might be so, and you actually have a good point, although I have some issues I would like to discuss with you in private if you don't mind).
If this is the system, I will work within it. Fair enough. In the end, it's Wikimedia's property, and they get to set the rules, however arbitrary and nonsensical they may be. The remnants of my earlier period of irrational Peikoffism blinded me to that, and I alone bear responsibility for that. I simply have to decide whether or not those restrictions are worth the benefit. At the moment, they are.
This assumption is not terribly logical. You need to do some thinking on your own about why people are getting pissed off.
Fred
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yes, I have been blocked twice before for the same behavior. I resumed it because, both times, after giving the involved admins plenty of time to explain why my behavior was wrong, I got no answer; thus, I made the conclusion that they had conceded defeat.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kurt Maxwell Weber stated for the record:
Yes, I have been blocked twice before for the same behavior. I resumed it because, both times, after giving the involved admins plenty of time to explain why my behavior was wrong, I got no answer; thus, I made the conclusion that they had conceded defeat.
This statement alone convinces me that your blocks were correct and too short.
- -- Sean Barrett | And it's great for tearing up sean@epoptic.org | fragile ecosystems -- watch!
Brock Batsell wrote:
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
I have discussed the block with several administrators and there's more history there than I realized. Your edits were disruptive, as I said before, and you had been blocked twice before for the same reason. Since you ignored the first section of my e-mail regarding the validity of your use of the word deletionist (which you have ignored in the past), I won't be defending you any longer in AN/I.
I unblocked Kurt and left a note on Karmafist's talk page saying why, and another note on WP:ANI about why, and requesting that admins keep to 24 hour blocks maximum.
I also left a long note on [[User talk:Kmweber]].
The problem with Kurt is that he is of the school of "if you can't prove me wrong to my satisfaction, then it means I am right, and can continue to behave this way". Zephram Stark and zen-master are other examples. They are incredibly disruptive and annoying, and basically drive normal editors into an incandescent rage.
Thankfully, we *don't* have to prove them wrong to their own satisfaction ... so I asked that admins monitoring his edits keep it to instructive and loving cattleprod zaps, until he learns what works and what doesn't.
Working productively with people you consider completely incorrect idiots is pretty much mandatory for Wikipedia. It's *not optional*. Kurt seems convinced we're mostly wrong and illogical, but still has to be able to work with such people without driving them into an incandescent rage to stay here and edit.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Thankfully, we *don't* have to prove them wrong to their own satisfaction ... so I asked that admins monitoring his edits keep it to instructive and loving cattleprod zaps, until he learns what works and what doesn't.
As of 8pm this evening, I removed all blocks on Kmweber. Note that I won't be unblocking again. But we'll see how things go.
- d.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 08:47, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
And again just now, about an hour after David Gerard unblocked me.
I'm shortening your block, but I agree with Snowspinner. No one is going to debate the point with you "are deletionists vandals?" because the question itself is manifestly absurd. Let it go. I would support any admin who blocks you for 24 hours-1 week for every further infraction after your block expires. Like David was suggesting, maybe since you can't seem to learn through discussion, you might learn through induction as you are blocked repeatedly.
Ryan
On 12/22/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 08:47, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Anyway, karmafist has now placed another indef block on me (because he "didn't see it on the logs". This is getting ridiculous.
And again just now, about an hour after David Gerard unblocked me.
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l