Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 30 December 2024

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Old

I tried to archive the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Isonomia01/archive_1 Isonomia01 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Warning

• Misplaced Pages:Administrative_action_review#Bbb23's_block,_revocation_of_TPA_of,_and_aspersions_about_Isonomia01

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you.

I've read over the above discussion, and your recent contributions.

Several editors have tried to explain to you that what you are, and have been, doing is disruptive.

If you continue down this path of disruption, you will likely be indefinitely blocked from editing individual pages, or even completely from editing Misplaced Pages.

I hope you consider this an opportunity to start to understand that what you are doing is disruptive, and why it is disruptive, and adjust your editing behaviour accordingly. - jc37 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

December 2024

Post 2nd Block

@CFAYou are correct. I was mistaken. The edit I thought was by asilver ring read: "Restored revision 1264449314 by Asilvering (talk)", and was by Bbb23. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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 Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrative actions".

"Administrators should justify their actions when requested."

https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages: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)