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_b…).
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.