[WikiEN-l] Improper block

[David Gerard]

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_behavior).


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.