Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my behavior; he, however, has not done so. He simply dismisses it as "bullshit" and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is wrong, then show me why. If not, then do the right thing and unblock me. That's all I ask.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my behavior; he, however, has not done so. He simply dismisses it as "bullshit" and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is wrong, then show me why. If not, then do the right thing and unblock me. That's all I ask.
I have unblocked you, because this seems clearly inappropriate, especially given that the user has had a conflict with you in the past. Except for clear cases of vandalism, blocks of this sort should not be unilaterally made without an Arbitration Committee ruling.
-Mark
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my behavior; he, however, has not done so. He simply dismisses it as "bullshit" and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is wrong, then show me why. If not, then do the right thing and unblock me. That's all I ask.
I have unblocked you, because this seems clearly inappropriate, especially given that the user has had a conflict with you in the past. Except for clear cases of vandalism, blocks of this sort should not be unilaterally made without an Arbitration Committee ruling.
I disagree. Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind of vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people in question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious use of temporary blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by these policies has a salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked editors, but if not on them, then on everyone subjected to their attacks, and on Wikipedia itself. If Wikipedia is to succeed, it must be a place where people of good faith *want* to edit, not a poisonous cesspool of incivility and attacks that any right-minded person would naturally want to avoid.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
I disagree. Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind of vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people in question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious use of temporary blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by these policies has a salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked editors, but if not on them, then on everyone subjected to their attacks, and on Wikipedia itself. If Wikipedia is to succeed, it must be a place where people of good faith *want* to edit, not a poisonous cesspool of incivility and attacks that any right-minded person would naturally want to avoid.
A 4-month block for personal attacks is clearly something within the purview of the Arbitration Committee, and not individual admins to decide, *especially* not individual admins who have had past disagreements with the user in question.
Even MrNaturalHealth was not blocked summarily without going through the normal process, so I see no reason to start allowing such nonsense now.
-Mark
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org
JAY JG wrote:
I disagree. Calling someone a "deletionist vandal" (or any other kind of vandal) is clearly a personal attack, particularly when the people in question are not doing what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are fundamental Wikipedia policies, and judicious use of temporary blocks for editors who defiantly refuse to abide by these policies has a salutary effect, hopefully on the blocked editors, but if not on them, then on everyone subjected to their attacks, and on Wikipedia itself. If Wikipedia is to succeed, it must be a place where people of good faith *want* to edit, not a poisonous cesspool of incivility and attacks that any right-minded person would naturally want to avoid.
A 4-month block for personal attacks is clearly something within the purview of the Arbitration Committee, and not individual admins to decide, *especially* not individual admins who have had past disagreements with the user in question.
Even MrNaturalHealth was not blocked summarily without going through the normal process, so I see no reason to start allowing such nonsense now.
I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather on the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks. That said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to resort to the Arbitration Committee.
Jay.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:37:04AM -0500, JAY JG wrote:
I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather on the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks. That said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to resort to the Arbitration Committee.
OK, I don't see consensus here -- even a few admins seem to think this block was way out of line. So "community consensus" doesn't pass here.
Let's keep in mind that there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for using blocks as a punishment; and neither administrators nor arbitrators have the authority to punish. The purpose of blocking is to prevent harm to the project, not to bring down retribution upon a person.
So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack of consensus?
"Karl A. Krueger" wrote
So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack of consensus?
You may have a point. I suggest that, having brought it to the attention of this list, and having had some sympathetic replies, you do not press your case.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"Karl A. Krueger" wrote
So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack of consensus?
You may have a point. I suggest that, having brought it to the attention of this list, and having had some sympathetic replies, you do not press your case.
Charles
It was Kurt, not Karl, who brought this matter up, IIRC.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
From: "Karl A. Krueger" kkrueger@whoi.edu
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:37:04AM -0500, JAY JG wrote:
I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather
on
the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks.
That
said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to resort to the Arbitration Committee.
OK, I don't see consensus here -- even a few admins seem to think this block was way out of line. So "community consensus" doesn't pass here.
Let's keep in mind that there's no basis in Wikipedia policy for using blocks as a punishment; and neither administrators nor arbitrators have the authority to punish. The purpose of blocking is to prevent harm to the project, not to bring down retribution upon a person.
So ... what sort of harm is threatened in this case that requires an immediate _four month_ block, without arbitration, and with evident lack of consensus?
Again, I have not commented on whether the *length* of this specific block was justified, but rather on the *concept* of blocks for personal attacks (and these were clearly unrepentant personal attacks). Please keep these concepts separate. There is clearly a consensus for blocking this individual for *some* period for continually making these attacks.
Jay.
JAY JG wrote:
I wasn't commenting about the length of the specific block, but rather on the concept of blocking an editor for unrepentant personal attacks. That said, editors who are sufficiently disruptive, or who engage in endless personal attacks, can be banned by community consensus, without need to resort to the Arbitration Committee.
Kicking Kurt off the wiki would be a net negative IMO. Lesser measures should get him to behave.
- d.
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
Of course it's a personal attack. Furthermore, a personal attack in an edit summary is particularly ill-favoured, because it can't be easily redacted.
I have told him that, should he refute my objection, I would gladly change my behavior; he, however, has not done so. He simply dismisses it as "bullshit" and says that it does not NEED refutation, and then he makes the claim (which lacks any historical--or psychological--basis) that should he provide a valid refutation I would simply ignore it anyway.
Kurt's standards of "proof" and "refutation" are famed on #wikipedia, and are part of why he was banned from there for a long while and is now allowed back on precisely as long as he's not being a PITA (particularly including not evangelising for Objectivism in any way whatsoever). This is actually working tolerably well.
I ask that, at the very least, due consideration be given to my argument rejecting his claim of inappropriate behavior on my part--if my argument is wrong, then show me why. If not, then do the right thing and unblock me. That's all I ask.
If you can't see why repeatedly calling someone a vandal is a personal attack, I must confess I'm at a loss at how to get it through to you, and fully support the use of Skinner-box techniques. I've seen them work well enough before in such cases.
- d.
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
That you were blocked is not a misjustice. I question whether four months was a reasonable time, however. If Delirium hadn't already unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week. Since I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.
Kelly
On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_behavior).
That you were blocked is not a misjustice. I question whether four months was a reasonable time, however. If Delirium hadn't already unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week. Since I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.
I am not a nice woman, and have reblocked for a week.
-Phil
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries. He has blocked me in the past for the same thing, and has told me that he would block me in the future if I did it again (I did, and he did); however, he has not demonstrated that use of the phrase "deletionist vandals" is a blockable offense (he claims that it is a violation of NPA, a claim I dispute; for an explanation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice_Regarding_AFD_be...).
That you were blocked is not a misjustice. I question whether four months was a reasonable time, however. If Delirium hadn't already unblocked you, I would have shortened your block to one week. Since I'm a nice woman, I won't reblock you.
Although Kurt is IME notoriously hard-of-clue in these matters, short sharp 12-to-24-hour blocks (applied like a cattle prod) have worked well in similar cases to impart a working simulation of clue, at least on the "don't do that or it'll hurt" level. It's short enough to be felt but not long enough to give up hope. Kurt is not actually stupid and he knows lots about lots of stuff, but his level of social interaction needs raising; it would be a good thing for him to be on Wikipedia if he can stop with the bad interactions.
- d.
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.
Actually, you were blocked for one month by Zoe.
Please try to report the truth henceforth.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/17/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
Yesterday, I was blocked for four months by karmafist for using the phrase "deletionist vandals" on a few AfD entries.
Actually, you were blocked for one month by Zoe. Please try to report the truth henceforth.
Actually, it looks like he did;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Karmafist
Not sure why that top entry (as of now) shows an indefinite block from Karmafist but there is no such listed on Weber's block log, but... it is there. Also no entry on WP:AN/I despite the note to check there in Karmafist's log.