User talk:Isonomia01

Special:Diff/1264512616

I missed your question because it got lost in the later reversion. Sorry about that. I'll answer it for you now. You said that my statement, remember that the aim of the "rules" is to promote collegial editing, not to give us something to enforce, was a considerably problematic thing to say here. I assure you that it is not. Please see WP:IAR and WP:5P. The entire purpose of this place is to be an encyclopedia. The rules exist to facilitate that. Someone who is out to "enforce the rules" more than they are to "build the encyclopedia" is not aligned with our purpose. You've read our guidelines, but you've missed the point of them all.

I see you've since been indefinitely blocked. I don't suggest that you appeal this block right now, but you're welcome back in the future. Please take the standard offer. -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Inevitably, editors will want to add material that other editors or administrators just want to arbitrarily censor from Wikipedia for some invalid reason. This is when the consensus process should occur.

That process failed, in spite of my efforts to adhere to that process (this can be verified at the Sonoma County talk page, and at Drmies' talk page). The reason for that failure, from my perspective, was that Magnolia was basically ignoring the discussion on the talk page, and started the revert war. From my perspective, this is indisputable, with reference to the logs.

I made a mistake in reverting Binksternet's revert, which was my second revert. I was then blocked without warning (with a false facade of a warning).

My efforts to cite the rules are literally backfiring by making a small percentage of the administrator team angry, and the other administrators are not opposing their actions, regardless of propriety.

There was no current conduct of concern. The logs show that I had stopped reverting and was waiting for a response to dialogue.

The rules state that editors are allowed to criticize the actions of administrators and that administrators are expected to respond to questions about sanctions they issued. I did not abuse that right. I was respectful and reasonable.

I followed the unblock procedure. The aspersion, civility, and threats rules has been consistently violated by various people. People have cast false aspersions about me, made personal attacks, and threatened me (with unjust blocks). I provided examples of these several times.

This whole time, I have complied with the rules (with the exception of the single frustrated comment to Magnolia, and the 2nd revert, which I believe are basically negligible, and they also occurred over a week ago, so, as everyone is so wont to say, 'drop the stick'). While my actions since then are in strict compliance with the rules, the current issue is more abstract. People can characterize my actions as "not here to build an encyclopedia", and that is subjective. The rules clearly state that editors are allowed to question and criticise the actions of administrators. That is not subjective. It is my personal perspective that the practices of abusing administrator tools are disruptive to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am here to build an encyclopedia, this tangent notwithstanding. I apologized when I made a mistake. Bbb23 could have too, or could have at least acknowledged that they could have done things a little more civilly, and we could have all moved on with our lives.

It's not appropriate for me to be forced into content consensus discussion under leverage of being blocked improperly. When people gave feedback or criticism that was logically valid on its face, I improved the content. This includes WillLondon's feedback, and Drmies' feedback. The only other person who gave feedback was Magnolia, and their feedback was not logically valid on its face. After the block, Binksternet and Cullen also provided feedback, which can be taken into consideration and the content can be improved. This is the normal consensus process.

I'll say this now. I should not be punished for responding to people on my own usertalk page. Or for using my usertalk page in non-disruptive ways (i.e. to list references to applicable policies, or other acts that are specifically allowed under the written policies).

Isonomia01 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll say this now. I should not be punished for responding to people on my own usertalk page. Or for using my usertalk page in non-disruptive ways (i.e. to list references to applicable policies, or other acts that are specifically allowed under the written policies). The only thing you should use your talk page for while blocked is writing and responding to an unblock appeal. -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There are a couple reasons why I would like to be unblocked. 1. I want to fix the archive bot on my talk page, which is bugging me. It archived 6 sections to archive 150, and it is not listing archive 150 on the table in the right. I copied and pasted that from another user's page. I would like to ask how to do this on the teahouse. 2. There's nothing else that I want to do right now. But in the future I would like to continue to (a) correct typos in articles, (b) link key phrases to their respective articles. I know now that this is controversial but yesterday I wanted to improve the edit I made to the Sonoma County article, with regard for the feedback from Binksternet and Cullen. Of course I wanted to discuss this on the talk page, and ping the people who have expressed interest in partaking in or concerns about this edit, and wait for consensus before making the edit, and not making the edit if there is not consensus. But at this point there are other concerns, and I don't really want to think about that at all right now. I would also like to discuss possible edits on article talk pages, and possibly make edits to the articles after proposing them on the talk pages. And make new redirect pages where appropriate. If the reviewing administrator would like me to do anything else, feel free to let me know, preferably prior to adjudicating the unblock request. Likewise, if you have any questions for me, please feel more than welcome to ask. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Those aren't reasons to unblock. Someone can fix the archive bot for you (not me, I try to avoid configuring archives). You must first address the reasons other editors have found your conduct concerning. Another admin has mentioned the standard offer. I suggest you consider that route to resuming editing. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've fixed the archive bot config. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Questions for Blocking Administrator ("Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them" WP:GAB)

Hello @Spicy,

In summary, I'm wondering why you blocked me, and I'd like to hear out your reason(s).

Can you point to anything specific edits after I was unblocked the last time that are not explicitly allowed under the policies?

Specifically I'm referring to the following.

"Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions".

"Administrators should justify their actions when requested."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

My interpretation is that I was blocked in retaliation for criticizing an administrator, for submitting an Administrative Action Request, per standardized complaint procedure, clarified misunderstandings, responded to people, and addressed one person repeatedly encouraging escalation of drama (although I believe that edit must have occurred after you had started the block process, since it was very close in time). Do you believe my interpretation is valid, and if not, do you have any reasons that you would like to explain?

Thanks. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First, I endorse the block, and the standard offer, above. For transparency, I provided you a warning on your talk page above, and at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, that this was a possible outcome.

And no, you were not "...blocked in retaliation for criticizing an administrator".

Many people have tried to help you, and apparently, you are not listening. Pages which may help you understand, are ones like: WP:STICK, WP:SPIDER, and in particular, tendentious editing.

What I sincerely suggest that you do is think about what you did to contribute to this situation. It is unlikely that you will be unblocked unless/until you do.

And if you continue down this road, it is quite possible that you will lose talk page access again. - jc37 06:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of your viewpoint is that the sum of what I did (perhaps rather than the individual parts by themselves) disrupted the peace of the administrator team. The consensus was to validate the block against me, and that I should have accepted that. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That is sheer nonsense. First there is no Administration team, there are multiple Administrators and they don't always agree. And it was your actions that led to your block, nothing to do with the "peace" of anyone. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there is a major gap between my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies, and the facts, and the interpretation of those policies and facts by some of the administrators. And I would like to get some clarification, particularly about the policies. Isonomia01 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any debating that I was blocked the second time in response to my AAR or my statements during that discussion. But please clarify if there is any other way of looking at it. I'm open to the possibility that it wasn't the AAR itself that resulted in the block, but something more specific. If there is anything specific I said or did that you'd like to point out to me, I would love to get on the same page. @Jc37 @Spicy Thanks. Isonomia01 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion, you stated that I should "address" what others found "concerning". I understand that several administrators would feel annoyed that I filed the AAR (i.e. that that was "tendentious", "disruptive", belaboring a dead topic, and/or whatever characterizations). Was that basically it? I'm just trying to get clarification if there was anything other than just the comments in that one discussion, and thought maybe you could help.

(1) Was there anything other than the AAR, or my comments in the AAR discussion, at issue? (2) Were any of the edits during the AAR procedure uncivil or personal attacks? Could anything I said be (with a degree of generosity) construed as not within the scope of reasonable good faith? Thanks. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, many people have tried to help you and to explain to you.

This isn't about the act of informing the Wikipedia community that you felt that an admin did something inappropriate. It's that what you did was contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

I attempted to provide informative links. For example, did you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing?

Being an enthusiastic editor is fine. But on Wikipedia, we aren't looking to add "the truth as we know it". We try to focus towards what others have said in verifiable reliable sources.

Here are some pages that might be helpful for you to understand editing within the encyclopedia project:

• Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia's_purpose
• Wikipedia:Expectations_and_norms_of_the_Wikipedia_community#Purpose_of_editing
• Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing

I hope this helps. - jc37 17:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I believe I completely understand your point of view that, broadly speaking, some of my edits since I was unblocked (over reverting once more than I should have) "weren't for the sake of building an encyclopedia", or were tendentious, etc.

Did you see this? "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." This is from WP:ADMINACCT.

This is where I think that I may have a different interpretation than some of the administrators (i.e. you, Spicy, Doug Weller, and a couple other like Drmies and Bbb23). My interpretation is that "question[ing] or criticizing administrator actions" can, validly, be considered (standalone) "not here to build an encyclopedia", "tendentious", etc. So I'm not arguing that your assertions about my conduct aren't valid. I admit that my edits (specifically with regard to the AAR) were (from my perspective) tangential to the goal of building an encyclopedia.

I just feel like there is some confusion about the policies and whether they allow editors to "question or criticize administrator actions", or not. I feel like there is, at least, some gray area where an editor can (a) question or criticize administrator actions, (b) be civil and act in reasonable good faith, and (c) those communications to still be validly interpreted as "disruptive", "not here to build an encyclopedia", and "tendentious". Or any or most of the time an editor does question or criticize an administrator action, it could also be considered tendentious etc.

So I just wanted to either get some clarification about that section of the policies, or see if you have any examples of my edits that didn't fall under "questioning or criticizing administrator actions" which also fit your description of tendentious etc., or if you thought I personally attacked anyone or was uncivil at all, or if you thought I acted outside the scope of reasonable good faith, during those edits.

Thanks.

Isonomia01 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also with regard to what you said about not wanting to add the truth as we know it, but rather information based on reliable and verifiable sources, I completely agree with that. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The overall consensus of your conduct was that you were treating Wikipedia as a battleground, seeking personal vindication and retribution, rather than showing that you understood that your editing privileges are dependent on maintaining a collaborative relationship with your fellow editors, to the benefit of the encyclopedia rather than any single individual. Wikipedia is not a court of law, nor are its processes. You appeared to be entirely concerned with treating those who disagreed with you and your conduct as opponents to be defeated or discredited. That isn't compatible with collaborative editing. There is no right to edit, it is a privilege that can be revoked. Verbose filibustering and wikilawyering is an effective way to lose editing privileges; the volunteers who maintain the encyclopedia have better things to do than read walls of text. To address the concerns of the editors who have looked at your conduct, you need to show that you understand that you have treated the encyclopedia project as a battleground, and that you will stop doing that and stop treating other editors as opponents. You are not entitled to unlimited patience. Read WP:SATISFY; you are not the arbiter of what a satisfactory response should be. I will not engage in further discussion, it is up to you to examine your conduct and the advice you have been given. If you continue to use this talkpage to filibuster or post polemics, you may lose access to it. The only proper use of this talkpage when you are blocked is for a concise unblock request that addresses your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that Acroterion has clarified rather well, so nothing more for me to say here. - jc37 02:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The consensus was to endorse the previous block against me for one more revert than I should have made. Several administrators either disagree with the length of the block, pointed out that revocation of talk page access was improper (see Bbb23's talk page), and it was established that aspersions were cast by the blocking editor, which was improper. The consensus was related to the actions of someone else, not me. There was no consensus or discussion to block me, so Acroterion's assertion regarding a "consensus" about my behavior was untrue; it was a very small percentage of people, and there is a dearth of supporting examples or diffs for the viewpoint.

I am not abusing my talk page access privileges.

I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion, but I don't think dialectics, logic, or rationality should be demonized.

Supporting one's assertions with sources is an important element of this platform.

We are all on the same side here. Isonomia01 (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Isonomia01! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How do you make green text?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion and acknowledge that I could do a better job of that.
2. It is the viewpoint of the blocking administrator(s) that I am basically a tendentious editor. I understand that viewpoint. This is very broad. Some topics on Wikipedia are controversial. I will respect other editors, and I will respect consensus of the community. I promise that I will avoid tendentious editing when it comes to discussing (or rather, not discussing) other people's behavior, and I will be more careful when discussing topics that are potentially controversial. I also believe that my edits that were considered tendentious were relegated to mitigating situations where understanding is clearly justified, along with tolerance. Isonomia01 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=#I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion and acknowledge that I could do a better job of that. #It is the viewpoint of the blocking administrator(s) that I am basically a tendentious editor. I understand that viewpoint. This is very broad. Some topics on Wikipedia are controversial. I will respect other editors, and I will respect consensus of the community. I promise that I will avoid tendentious editing when it comes to discussing (or rather, not discussing) other people's behavior, and I will be more careful when discussing topics that are potentially controversial. I also believe that my edits that were considered tendentious were relegated to mitigating situations where understanding is clearly justified, along with tolerance. [[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=#I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion and acknowledge that I could do a better job of that. #It is the viewpoint of the blocking administrator(s) that I am basically a tendentious editor. I understand that viewpoint. This is very broad. Some topics on Wikipedia are controversial. I will respect other editors, and I will respect consensus of the community. I promise that I will avoid tendentious editing when it comes to discussing (or rather, not discussing) other people's behavior, and I will be more careful when discussing topics that are potentially controversial. I also believe that my edits that were considered tendentious were relegated to mitigating situations where understanding is clearly justified, along with tolerance. [[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=#I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion and acknowledge that I could do a better job of that. #It is the viewpoint of the blocking administrator(s) that I am basically a tendentious editor. I understand that viewpoint. This is very broad. Some topics on Wikipedia are controversial. I will respect other editors, and I will respect consensus of the community. I promise that I will avoid tendentious editing when it comes to discussing (or rather, not discussing) other people's behavior, and I will be more careful when discussing topics that are potentially controversial. I also believe that my edits that were considered tendentious were relegated to mitigating situations where understanding is clearly justified, along with tolerance. [[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Isonomia01 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)