Newimpartial (talk | contribs) Ce and reply |
|||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::::::{{re|Newimpartial}} It’s one thing for another editor to say that certain edits do not improve the article. But you are saying that I should have known that the edits reverted by Bacondrum contravened the settled resolution of an editing dispute and that my refusal to accept that resolution and move on was disruptive, so I should be blocked from editing. How is Black Kite supposed to evaluate such a claim unless the person making it provides a little clarification: what was the nature of the editing dispute, how was it resolved, and how did the edits in question conflict with that resolution? Why do you resist this? You are like the person who accuses another person of committing burglary, claims to be in possession of facts that would support a conviction on such a charge, but then refuses to disclose those facts and simply keeps repeating that the accused person is guilty and should be sentenced to prison. Why do you refuse to disclose what characteristic of the edits calls for sanctions against me? — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 16:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
::::::{{re|Newimpartial}} It’s one thing for another editor to say that certain edits do not improve the article. But you are saying that I should have known that the edits reverted by Bacondrum contravened the settled resolution of an editing dispute and that my refusal to accept that resolution and move on was disruptive, so I should be blocked from editing. How is Black Kite supposed to evaluate such a claim unless the person making it provides a little clarification: what was the nature of the editing dispute, how was it resolved, and how did the edits in question conflict with that resolution? Why do you resist this? You are like the person who accuses another person of committing burglary, claims to be in possession of facts that would support a conviction on such a charge, but then refuses to disclose those facts and simply keeps repeating that the accused person is guilty and should be sentenced to prison. Why do you refuse to disclose what characteristic of the edits calls for sanctions against me? — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 16:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{re|Bacondrum}} You were actually the one who was most vociferous about my flouting of consensus, and the one who brought the matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Would you weigh in on this question as well? — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
::::::{{re|Bacondrum}} You were actually the one who was most vociferous about my flouting of consensus, and the one who brought the matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Would you weigh in on this question as well? — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::: I am not sure you understand, Swood, that page (and other) bans and blocks are intended to prevent '''''future''''' disruption, not to impose restitution for '''''past''''' disruption. The only |
::::::: I am not sure you understand, Swood, that page (and other) bans and blocks are intended to prevent '''''future''''' disruption, not to impose restitution for '''''past''''' disruption. The only contributions your repeated questions about the {{tq|past conviction}} (sic.) are making is to provide more and more evidence that - if your ban from [[Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] is allowed to lapse - you will resume disrupting the page, if only (and I hazard a guess that it won't actually be "only") to question what the consensus was that you tendentiously opposed last time, and even though this consensus has been explained to you in great detail on your Talk page. The relationships between the specific edits you made, which were then reverted, and the article-level consensus have no bearing at all on the policy-relevant question which is, '''''if you are allowed to edit the page, will your activity be disruptive?''''' The evidence from this Admin Talk page is a rather clear '''''Yes!''''', which is why I believe the health of the project provides strong grounds for a longer ban. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{od}} |
{{od}} |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
What is the justification for a refusal to articulate rules of conduct? Rules that nobody will articulate cannot be enforced. — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) {{re|Newimpartial}} I should also have pinged you on this, though the questions were directed to Black Kite. — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
What is the justification for a refusal to articulate rules of conduct? Rules that nobody will articulate cannot be enforced. — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) {{re|Newimpartial}} I should also have pinged you on this, though the questions were directed to Black Kite. — [[User:Swood100|Swood100]] ([[User talk:Swood100|talk]]) 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
: What {{tq|façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here)}}? The consensus has been spelled out at great length on your Talk page. Speaking of which, {{tq|giving him an opportunity to defend himself}} has most definitely happened on that page as well; haven't you had your appeals turned down three times already by various Admin? |
|||
: Also, have you provided any evidence that, if you are allowed to edit [[Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] in the future, you will not resume [[WP:SEALION|civil POV-pushing]] and BLUDGEONing the page? Because that is the only thing that matters to your ban. |
|||
: But sure, [[WP:IDHT|it is only a flesh wound]]. Clearly. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:17, 8 March 2021
Six hours x2!
Haha, great minds, etc. El_C 01:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Make that twice! Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and as an added funny, for reasons which I no longer recall, 6 has been my lucky number since early childhood (proof); though, that isn't why I picked it here — 12 seemed too long and 3 too short, so I split the difference. El_C 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly the logic I used! Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Block needed
Hello, could you please block H Truck? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Archiving of Cultural Marxism page block discussion
Why did you archive the Cultural Marxism page block section to Archive 83? I thought that we were in the middle of trying to determine whether my edits were improper. No longer? What is the resolution of that? What did you mean by “since collapsing didn't work”? — Swood100 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I thought you wanted it pasted to another venue, so I collapsed it leaving the history for someone to do that, but then the discussion carried on anyway. It's still there in the Archive page for someone to take it to whichever venue they wish. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I’m just a little confused. You collapsed it with the suggestion that the discussion stick to one location. I replied that the discussion is not happening at any other location. I then asked Newimpartial, who had referred to an earlier discussion on my Talk page, to copy any relevant text from my Talk page and paste it here, so that both you and I could understand what his response was to my questions. What made you think that I wanted this discussion to be pasted to another venue (I’m not sure I even know what that means)? What is the status of my block? — Swood100 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I hope this conversation will at least result in a 90-day extension of your block, for some combination of IDONTHEARTHAT and NOTHERE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the benefit of Black Kite (and for my benefit as well), please cut and paste that portion of our previous discussion on my Talk page that explains, with reference to my inability to drop the stick, what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not going to do that - the onus was on you to seek consensus for disputed content, not on other editors to drag out diffs so that you could nitpick various aspects of the existing consensus. For the same reason, I am not going to elaborate further on my already extensive explanation on your Talk, setting out the existing article-level consensus, nor will I provide additional diffs. As to your
inability to drop the stick
, you have shown that yet again in the five times you have insisted that others provide you with diffs showing your inability to drop the stick - literally, each time you have raised that issue, after the first, actually answers your own question. Which is why I think an additional 90 days (or perhaps a 1-year) block from Cultural Marxism is needed so that you learn to drop the stick and let it lie. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)- @Newimpartial: It’s one thing for another editor to say that certain edits do not improve the article. But you are saying that I should have known that the edits reverted by Bacondrum contravened the settled resolution of an editing dispute and that my refusal to accept that resolution and move on was disruptive, so I should be blocked from editing. How is Black Kite supposed to evaluate such a claim unless the person making it provides a little clarification: what was the nature of the editing dispute, how was it resolved, and how did the edits in question conflict with that resolution? Why do you resist this? You are like the person who accuses another person of committing burglary, claims to be in possession of facts that would support a conviction on such a charge, but then refuses to disclose those facts and simply keeps repeating that the accused person is guilty and should be sentenced to prison. Why do you refuse to disclose what characteristic of the edits calls for sanctions against me? — Swood100 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Bacondrum: You were actually the one who was most vociferous about my flouting of consensus, and the one who brought the matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Would you weigh in on this question as well? — Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure you understand, Swood, that page (and other) bans and blocks are intended to prevent future disruption, not to impose restitution for past disruption. The only contributions your repeated questions about the
past conviction
(sic.) are making is to provide more and more evidence that - if your ban from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is allowed to lapse - you will resume disrupting the page, if only (and I hazard a guess that it won't actually be "only") to question what the consensus was that you tendentiously opposed last time, and even though this consensus has been explained to you in great detail on your Talk page. The relationships between the specific edits you made, which were then reverted, and the article-level consensus have no bearing at all on the policy-relevant question which is, if you are allowed to edit the page, will your activity be disruptive? The evidence from this Admin Talk page is a rather clear Yes!, which is why I believe the health of the project provides strong grounds for a longer ban. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure you understand, Swood, that page (and other) bans and blocks are intended to prevent future disruption, not to impose restitution for past disruption. The only contributions your repeated questions about the
- I am not going to do that - the onus was on you to seek consensus for disputed content, not on other editors to drag out diffs so that you could nitpick various aspects of the existing consensus. For the same reason, I am not going to elaborate further on my already extensive explanation on your Talk, setting out the existing article-level consensus, nor will I provide additional diffs. As to your
- For the benefit of Black Kite (and for my benefit as well), please cut and paste that portion of our previous discussion on my Talk page that explains, with reference to my inability to drop the stick, what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I hope this conversation will at least result in a 90-day extension of your block, for some combination of IDONTHEARTHAT and NOTHERE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I’m just a little confused. You collapsed it with the suggestion that the discussion stick to one location. I replied that the discussion is not happening at any other location. I then asked Newimpartial, who had referred to an earlier discussion on my Talk page, to copy any relevant text from my Talk page and paste it here, so that both you and I could understand what his response was to my questions. What made you think that I wanted this discussion to be pasted to another venue (I’m not sure I even know what that means)? What is the status of my block? — Swood100 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: “That kind of edit is prohibited.” “Why?” “It has already been explained to you.” “No it hasn’t. Please explain it again or point me to a previous explanation.” “This is persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick. I’m going to enforcement.”
Do the Wikipedia rules allow a person accused of an editing offense to be penalized without having been presented with specific edits of his and an explanation as to how they constitute an offense? According to the U. S. Supreme Court:
- To satisfy due process, “a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010)
When one editor doesn’t like the edits of another editor, or wishes to establish or enforce a POV consensus, can he simply take the matter to the administrator’s noticeboard, make a general accusation of a refusal to drop the stick, refuse to specify a settled resolution of an editing dispute, refuse to disclose facts that would show how a specific edit, or group of edits, ignored that settled resolution, and expect to have his charges upheld? That’s absurd. How can an uninvolved admin, in a reasonable amount of time, on an article having extensive talkpage archives, possibly be able to identify a consensus that is nowhere spelled out and that is actually an attempt to circumvent the NPOV requirements through hand-waving? The WP:NPOV page makes clear that attempts to establish POV editing limitations under the guise of consensus can be expected and are prohibited. However, what mechanism is there to enforce this?
Fundamental fairness requires that any editor who formally charges another editor with failure to observe the settled resolution of an editing dispute must have already specified what the resolution of the dispute was, which edits conflict with the resolution, and if it is not obvious, why the edits conflict with the resolution. This will (a) eliminate attempts to implement a POV scheme behind a façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here), (b) eliminate the unfairness of penalizing an editor without first explaining the nature of the offense and giving him an opportunity to defend himself, (c) reduce arbitrary enforcement of the rules against disruption by allowing the admin to quickly discover the subject of the specific editing dispute, the resolution that is being claimed, and the edits that are asserted to ignore that resolution.
If “everybody knows” what is being prohibited and why, then what is the objection to a requirement that that this be spelled out explicitly before an enforcement proceeding is begun? Do the drawbacks of requiring this exceed the potential benefits, such as an easier job for the admin, eliminating covert attempts to enforce a POV consensus, eliminating the requirement that editors adhere to unspecified rules or be penalized, and encouraging editors to make a bona fide effort to at least attempt to resolve their own conflicts by stating their positions clearly and concretely to each other before involving outsiders?
What is the justification for a refusal to articulate rules of conduct? Rules that nobody will articulate cannot be enforced. — Swood100 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Newimpartial: I should also have pinged you on this, though the questions were directed to Black Kite. — Swood100 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- What
façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here)
? The consensus has been spelled out at great length on your Talk page. Speaking of which,giving him an opportunity to defend himself
has most definitely happened on that page as well; haven't you had your appeals turned down three times already by various Admin? - Also, have you provided any evidence that, if you are allowed to edit Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in the future, you will not resume civil POV-pushing and BLUDGEONing the page? Because that is the only thing that matters to your ban.
- But sure, it is only a flesh wound. Clearly. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)