Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sonoma County, California. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216143800","author":"Magnolia677","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Magnolia677-20241216143800-December_2024","replies":["c-Isonomia01-20241219055700-Magnolia677-20241216143800","c-Isonomia01-20241216162300-Magnolia677-20241216143800"]}}-->
You assert that I made "unconstructive edits" that "appear to be disruptive". The edit that you removed was properly sourced. There's nothing wrong with that edit. I view your accusation as untrue.
You say, "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." You and I are engaged in a content dispute. Your user talk page is locked. And I have had a discussion on the talk page for 6 months. You were also tagged in a consensus discussion on Drmies' talk page, and did not partake in consensus discussion there, either. I am confused as to why you, (1) did not engage on the talk page, and (2) are recommending that I do, when I already have?
You say, "[P]lease do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges". If you'd like to support your assertion that I made "disruptive edits" with evidence, I'd be happy to take your criticism into consideration. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219055700","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241219055700-Magnolia677-20241216143800","replies":[]}}-->
Magnolia, lets go through the facts.
You removed a section from the *talk page* of Sonoma County, California. This was a violation of Wikipedia's Rules, as I explained to you. See the talk page of User:Isonomia09. This was over 18 months ago.
You threatened me with a block for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Again, this was a (rather egregious) violation of Wikipedia's Rules, which was explained to you (and which you have now repeated a second time).
I re-worded and re-added the section to Sonoma County's talk page. You claimed that me adding a section on the heinous human rights violations committed by the government would turn the entire 30 page article into an attack page. Do you understand that your claim was obviously false? I'm legitimately wondering. I responded to you timely. You failed to engage in further conversation. This was 18 months ago.
I added a section on the talk page of Sonoma County regarding the edits I intended to make. You failed to participate in discussion at *any time* over the past 6 months. There is consensus on the talk page. Nobody has engaged. You have not brought any argument that is remotely valid up against the additions that I told everyone I intended to make 18 months ago.
You were tagged by Drmie's on his talk page regarding this topic. You failed to engage in that discussion.
We are all held to same standards, Magnolia. If you want others to "seek consensus", don't you think that you should have sought consensus before, during, or after you deleted my content? But you did not. The talk page has not been utilized by anyone except me. The talk page still shows that I am the only one that used it. I was very patient to allow other people to engage. It is obvious that I have acted in good faith. Consensus was reached not only on Sonoma County's talk page, but also on Drmies' talk page.
Your talk page is chalk full of people complaining that you are engaged in disruptive editing. Not only that but you made someone mad enough to spend their days engaged in using VPN's to vandalize your talk page. Your talk page is locked and can't be used for discussion.
You deleted my additions to the Sonoma County page. In your edit remarks/summary, you told me to use the talk page. I check the talk page, and color me surprised, but you had not engaged in any sort of discussion on the talk page. Do you understand that you're supposed to engage on the talk page regarding edits? You're supposed to engage in discussion? You shouldn't be making these accusations against me.
Did you engage on the talk page? No. Because you did not engage on the talk page, stop reverting my edit. If you want to revert my edit, ENGAGE ON THE TALK PAGE. It seems really simple to me. But you're making false accusations against me, and threatening me (again) -- which is a pretty blatant violation of the rules. While simultaneously IGNORING THE TALK PAGE, which is beyond just irony and moves into realm of double-standards and hypocrisy. You are literally harassing me. Were you incapable of following the rules that you're quoting yourself? Were you incapable of seeking resolution through discussion at any point? You're relying on your own insistence on violating the rules of Wikipedia and other improper leverage, to get your way. You know full well that you're violating Wikipedia's rules, and you're being irrational.
Isonomia01 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216162300","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241216162300-Magnolia677-20241216143800","replies":[]}}-->
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216173600","author":"Bbb23","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bbb23-20241216173600-December_2024","replies":[]}}-->
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).
1. Bbb23 was engaged in a dispute with me so was barred from blocking me. See the rule on blocks. He also made disparaging remarks about me, and then neglected to engage in discussion with me. 2. I did not violate the "three revert rule". I only reverted twice (this excludes one time prior where I engaged in discussion and reached a consensus with Drmies, before I reverted). I then literally did not revert, and engaged for literally the 5th time in discussion in good faith. I was literally waiting for other people to honor the sayRules of Wikipedia, as I have. You can see the truth of this in the Sonoma County, California revision history. Who made the last revert? It was Magnolia. Not me. (3) Was Magnolia also blocked? Are the same standards being applied to everyone fairly and impartially? Why am I really being targeted here? Isonomia01 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216174700","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241216174700-December_2024","replies":[]}}-->
Decline reason:
Looking at the history of the article, I don't see Bbb23 reverting you. I am not going to unblock you on a technicality, so I suggest you drop the criticism of Bbb23. You need to read WP:Edit Warring - you can be blocked without going over 3RR. Again, looking at the history of the article, multiple editors reverted you, so it makes sense to block you, and not them. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241216182300","author":"PhilKnight","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PhilKnight-20241216182300-December_2024","replies":[]}}-->
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.
PhilKnight, WP:GAB reads, "If a mistake has happened, show actual evidence or explain it (briefly). Don't make vague claims that cannot be checked[.]" You can confirm, by checking the revision history of my user page, that the person who blocked me deleted content from my user page recently. You can also find communications about this on Drmies' talk page. I believe the fact that the person who blocked me had recently deleted content from my userpage constitutes a "mistake". I believe a "technicality" is something like a formatting error.
I'm re-reading WP:WAR. I see: "24 hours is common for a first offense", "Where multiple editors engage in edit wars [...] administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues", and "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". I won't argue that I wasn't wrong to make the second revert, or try to make any arguments in my defense on that, regardless of what the rules say or don't say; I simply apologize. (My arguments above were arguments that I should be treated impartially, not that I wasn't wrong in the second revert.) Isonomia01 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219053900","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241219053900-December_2024","replies":[]}}-->
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).
First of all, I want to get some clarification. It is my impression that it is in fact a violation of Wikipedia's Rules to randomly delete content, and ignore discussion on the talk page. If content is (1) properly sourced, (2) notable, (3) related to the article, and (4) there is a section on the talk page discussing the topic, then the Rules state that editors should engage in the discussion on the talk page and reach a consensus with other editors, and not just randomly delete the content. Is this not correct?
The block is being used as leverage to remove content, in place of conensus discussion.
Bbb23, and Magnolia, are engaged in a content dispute with me, but they are declining to engage in consensus discussion, while simultaneously making threats, and using/abusing moderator powers. With regard to Bbb23 specifically, he removed content from my userpage, and made rude and disparaging remarks about me on User:Drmies' talk page.
I was aware of the general principle edit warring policy before the "edit war" (I made two reverts, and the I disengaged, and waited for people to respond to my consensus discussions), but I was under the impression that my actions would not be in violation of the policy. After the block, I reviewed the policy and am familiar with it now.
I have engaged in good faith consensus discussion for 18 months. Magnolia is refusing to do so. He has repeatedly violated Wikipedia rules, and he (and Bbb23 at this point) are now relying on threats of disruptive activity, and open contumacy for Wikipedia's rules to get their way.
Did Magnolia engage in consensus discussion in the last 6 months? No. Did I? Yes. Was Magnolia tagged during consensus discussion on Drmies' talk page? Yes. Did he engage in consensus discussion after being tagged? No. Did he engage in the existing consensus forum that I created on the talk page at any point in the last 6 months, or when he deleted my content, or after he deleted my content? No.
Was I patient? Was I careful? Did I carefully engage in consensus discussion prior to adding the content? Yes. Did I clearly demonstrate that I was and have been acting in good faith? Yes.
This block is clearly in violation of the terms of the rules on blocking. The terms of the rules on blocking are "technicalities", and "technicalities" are the basis of rules. Bbb23 was in fact engaged in a content dispute with me, and did in fact make disparaging and rude remarks that I consider unwarranted.
"Assume good faith."
Who was the last one to revert the article? It wasn't me - it was Magnolia.
Isn't it true that I engaged in consensus discussion?
"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". (And there are quite a few more quotes from this page that are applicable here, which were violated.)
- This is not a "technicality". A technicality in this context is something like a formatting error. This is a substantial breach of the rule.
The block was objectively unnecessary, as I was not the one who made the last revert, and I had engaged in consensus discussion AFTER Magnolia's last revert (*rather* than reverting), and was awaiting a response. This block is a tactic to remove content, when the people involved openly ignored consensus discussion. I'm not going to discuss the validity of the content here, as this is not the right place for consensus discussion. I'm not going to have my editing privileges held hostage as leverage to allow content to be removed.
My plan was to wait until my consensus discussions were responded to, and discuss the matter in good faith, and reach a consensus based on the rules of Wikipedia, and logic, and to collaborate in good faith, to hear people out.
I also expect to be heard out, to have my arguments weighed fairly and with regard to the Rules and Principles of Wikipedia. Again, I'm not going to engage in consensus discussion HERE.
This is wrong. Did I revert after Magnolia left the note on my talk page? No. I only reverted twice (other activities that might appear to be reverts took place after consensus was reached explicitly). I've been very patient with people removing my content without engaging in consensus discussion, for several weeks. It has happened numerous times, and I have always adhered to the rules that I am knowledgeable of, and I have always acted in good faith. When Magnolia failed to engage in consensus discussion, deleted my content, simultaneously (a) failing to engage in the conensus discussion that I drew out on the talk page, and (b) instructed me to engage in consensus discussion that already existed on the talk page, I believe that demonstrated bad faith and malice. I reverted his removal out of (a) a sincere belief that it was the best course of action to resolve the situation in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles (that is, engage in discussion to reach a consensus, and DON'T RANDOMLY DELETE CONTENT), and (b) I was finally out of patience for this sort of activity. Again, I viewed it as bad faith, and I believe it is/was in bad faith, especially after his past activities, and open contumacy for the rules. I reverted Binksternet's edit separately, because there is consensus discussion on the talk page, and he failed to engage in the discussion. Extensive consensus discussion has taken place, and (is this unfair of me? but,) I expect people to engage in consensus discussion. If these are unrelated incidents, then I only reverted ONCE in each instance. I engaged in good faith consensus discussions in both instances.
After this experience, I will have less expectations of others to engage in consensus discussion when deleting content, and I will shoulder more responsibility myself to proactively engage people who delete my content.
I am being forced into it through a revert war started and finished by Magnolia (while he simultaneously failed to engage in discussion being given multiple opportunities). In terms of being required to seek other people's PERMISSION to make edits, I am being obligated to adhere higher standards than other people, or than the rules dictate. Am I obligated to INVITE people who have demonstrated a disregard for the rules and a maliciousness toward me personally to participate in discussion? I don't think I am / should be, because other people are not obligated to ping me on the talk page when they make edits.
Again, I stopped engaging in the revert war after only two reverts, and allowed Magnolia's revert to stand, even though he violated the rules, and openly engaged in a revert war, made deceptive comments on the edit summaries, while simultaneously doing precisely what he falsely accused me of doing, and had repeatedly made deceptive comments about the situation, in order to get content removed WITHOUT engaging in good faith consensus discussion. His behavior is objectively not good faith. Again, I stopped participating in the reversions, and engaged in dialogue.
I have respected the rules to the extent that I was familiar with them. I have acted in good faith. My expectations that other users will treat me with respect and be fair to me and that the Rules of Wikipedia be honored and administrated fairly has not been and is not being met. Wikipedia is more than the sum of a few people's personal wishes, with no regard to the rules or to logic. I should not be being singled out for what does in fact amount to harassment (objective unwarranted threats 18 months ago by Magnoloia, deletion of my content on talk pages in violation of the rules, disparaging and rude remarks by Bbb23, open ignoring my attempts to engage people in consensus discussion, while simultaneously making deceptive false accusations, abuse of moderator power to leverage removal of content while simultaneously ignoring consensus discussion). Again, moderator powers should not be used/abused as leverage to get content removed. The talk page should have been utilized by people other than just myself. Isonomia01 (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217013500","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241217013500-Second_Unblock_Request","replies":[]}}-->
Decline reason:
Declined per WP:TLDR. From what little I saw probably WP:NOTTHEM applies too. I'm not yet ready to remove talk page access or extend the block but if the response is another lengthy rant, that will probably happen. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217092600","author":"331dot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-331dot-20241217092600-Second_Unblock_Request","replies":[]}}-->
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'm not sure that you can legitimately expect to be heard out, since you have complained so much and written such long talk page posts and unblock requests that the average volunteer may have clocked out by now. You posted a huge thing on my talk page where you, I think, argued that you should have your way because no one responded to some talk page post? Well, that doesn't work: that's not consensus. Of course you can go ahead and make the edit anyway, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get reverted. You also complained about this edit--well, I agree with Magnolia: that was a rant, an unsourced one, and it was not valid talk page content. And yet you keep edit warring in the article, and the last one you edit-warred with was Binksternet. Well, the responses you got initially (from Magnolia and Willondon) should have alerted you to our guidelines, but you chose to basically say "they're wrong" and just push ahead, and that in the end is why you're blocked.
So, no, Magnolia did not issue "objective unwarranted threats" and did not violate any guidelines by removing that rant, and Bbb did not treat you with disparaging and rude remarks and oppress you. There was no "consensus discussion"--no one agrees with your edits, and the ones who disagree with you are three (four, if I count myself) of the most experienced editors and admins on the project. As far as I'm concerned, a combination of WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE applies, with a sprinkling of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and I would decline this unblock request, and support an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217020900","author":"Drmies","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Drmies-20241217020900-Second_Unblock_Request","replies":["c-Isonomia01-20241217021800-Drmies-20241217020900","c-Isonomia01-20241217023400-Drmies-20241217020900"]}}-->
I would like time to (1) review the pages referenced, (2) source the assertions that I made, which you are disputing the truth of, to prove that the assertions are true, and (3) respond to this, before a decision is made hastily. In the meantime, I would like to note that you're not disputing that Bbb23 was engaged in a content dispute with me (on my user page), and that the block was invalid from the get-go. Isonomia01 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217021800","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241217021800-Drmies-20241217020900","replies":[]}}-->
Your accusations of [in]competence ("CIR") is particularly unwarranted, your other accusations notwithstanding.
You're just mad that I'm accusing Bbb23 and Magnolia of things, and making a valid supporting argument for my assertions, that is verifiable.
I'd like to go over what you're not disputing. (1) You are not disputing that Magnolia was tagged on your talk page, (2) that he failed to engage in consensus discussion. (3) He threatened me with a block 18 months ago. Are you aware of that? You must be, since you're "agreeing" with his accusations against me on the page where he threatened me with a block. So you're not disputed that he threatened me with a block. For what? For adding a section to a talk page, which has ultimately *been properly sourced* PRIOR to being added to the article, which you *acknowledge* on your talk page.
Look, I've been trying to explain that it's frustrating when people delete my content and fail to engage in the talk page discussion. Lets take your deletion of my content for example. If you had simply tagged me on the talk page and said "these sources are not acceptable", and waited 24-48 hours for me to fix it for you, that would have saved me a lot of work. You weren't even aware that there was a discussion about it on the talk page (see your statements on your user talk page). In retrospect, I agree with you. But it made extra work for me.
I'm not going to engage in this until tomorrow. I should not be being blocked. I have made a sincere effort to engage in consensus discussion. I have acknowledged that I won't participate in revert wars in the future. I am open to hearing people out. I am open to getting clarification, as well as education about the rules. I have read the references that people send me. I have proven that the block was invalid. I am stepping away and will pick this back up tomorrow. But I will add one last thing. After you and I engaged in consensus discussion, you said "go ahead" with the edit. Isonomia01 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217023400","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241217023400-Drmies-20241217020900","replies":["c-Drmies-20241217025200-Isonomia01-20241217023400"]}}-->
Hey--one reason for me to oppose an unblock for you is this incredibly irritating habit you have of turning someone's silence into some kind of tacit support for your position. Oh, wait, sorry, I didn't deny that you and Bbb had some kind of disagreement so I agree that you had some kind of disagreement and Bbb is now involved and the block is now invalid? No: I have no interest whatsoever in addressing every single one of your tedious points, and you twisting that into something else just makes it all the more clear to me that you are not a net positive here. No, you have not "proven" that the block was invalid: quite the opposite. I believe an indef block is warranted with talk page removal, since you are wasting our time here. Bye. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217025200","author":"Drmies","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Drmies-20241217025200-Isonomia01-20241217023400","replies":[]}}-->
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).
Acknowledgement of allegations against me and what I've done wrong:
There are two significant things I acknowledge that I have done wrong.
1. I engaged in a revert war (I made two reverts). Magnolia removed the content that I added. I reverted Magnolia's deletion, and told him to engage on the talk page (his userpage is locked, and I had already added a section on the talk page which had not been participated in by Magnolia, so the only place left to do it was in the edit summary). Binksternet then deleted the section, and I reverted his deletion, and added a section on Binksternet's talk page basically saying that there is a section on the talk page for consensus discussion and to please participate there; I did not word it that way, though. I was frustrated. I sincerely want to apologize for my second revert, and to Binksternet for being less than 100% polite on his talk page.
Before that happened, I engaged in extensive attempts at consensus discussions. By that I mean that I provided my perspective on the talk page, and gave others the opportunity to engage, although I did not tag people who had expressed concerns about my edits in continued additions to the talk page.
After I reverted Binksternet's removal, Magnolia re-reverted my edit. At that point, I did in fact step back, and made the conscious decision to NOT further engage in revert wars. I resorted to dialogue. I added a section on the article's talk page, where I tagged Magnolia, and again gave him the opportunity to engage in consensus discussion. Again, I only made two reverts. If it seems otherwise, any details can be explained by asking me about it.
I also want to add that I consciously stepped back and stopped engaging in "edit wars" (two reverts) BEFORE Magnolia put a warning template on my talk page, and BEFORE Bbb23 blocked me. To make sure this is clear, I did not do anything, at all, that could be construed as even a grey area violation of Wikipedia's rules after Magnolia's second revert. (Magnola put the warning on my page "14:38, 16 December 2024". Magnolia's last revert was "14:37, 16 December 2024".)
2. In the past, the additions I made to Sonoma County's talk page ran afoul of WP:BLP. This was, for the most part, 18 months ago. Since then I have raised my standards for sourcing my assertions, including on the talk pages of articles. Also, this does not apply to edits I made to articles (although there is one case where my sources did not meet Wikipedia's standards, it was not BLP, and if it seems otherwise, I may be asked about any apparent incongruities and will provide additional clarification).
Other allegations against me:
I am being accused of being "long winded". I will make greater effort at making my writing more readable, and strive to remove more language that is less significant.
Non-neutrality. The section in question was accused of non-neutrality (without any further specification). There has not been consensus discussion yet, because I was blocked before this could happen. An unblock request is not the place for consensus discussion.
If there's anything else significant that I have forgotten, missed, or didn't give adequate attention to, that you would like me to respond to or acknowledge, let me know.
(After I was blocked,) WP:ONUS was linked to me. But the language there is belied by the language in the link, in the WP:ONUS section, to WP:PRESERVE. Both standards can be observed by both sides. (Unblock request is not the place for consensus discussion.)
My assurances to the community:
I intend to act in good faith, within the scope of the rules to the absolute best of my ability, and to make a reasonably diligent inquiry into all rules that are relevant to anything regarding my edits. I promise that I will remain reasonably calm (I am generally a calm person, but am subject to emotion like every other human, and I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. I promise to be polite, courteous, and respectful. I want to be forthright that this does not mean that I am promising not to cite the rules to people or to engage with people about or otherwise address things they've done that I disagree with.
I will not participate in revert wars. I sincerely apologize for that, and I want to apologize particularly to Binksternet for reverting his deletion, and for being less than polite and courteous about it on his talk page.
Again, with reference to WP:NOTTHEM, I want to reiterate that I have made diligent effort to provide other users the opportunity to engage in consensus discussion. I didn't ignore people's concerns, but rather acknowledged and addressed their concerns, or explained why I thought their assertions were invalid with valid premises for my conclusions. I have researched the rules, and my interpretation is that the rules support my stance on content deletion and consensus discussion. This has been a recurring theme in my communications.
I want to clarify that my first concern is not the deletion of the content I added, but rather the lack of engagement in discussion on the talk page. If the people I was in the dispute with had engaged on the talk page -- even *after* deleting the content -- this wouldn't have happened. I would have participated in consensus discussion, and waited for, and respected, a community consensus -- but that didn't happen.
I promise to strive to be as neutral and objective, as openminded to the possibility of flaws in myself, and to act faithfully and in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, to make a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia, as I can.
Isonomia01 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241217225400","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241217225400-Third_Unblock_Request","replies":[]}}-->
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
Your latest unblock request is malformed and not showing up in the queue, but I don't believe fixing it will do you any favours. It's still primarily about other people rather than yourself. Please carefully read WP:GAB, especially the section entitled "Stick to the point", before you try again. – bradv14:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241218142800","author":"Bradv","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bradv-20241218142800-Third_Unblock_Request","replies":["c-Isonomia01-20241218164800-Bradv-20241218142800"]}}-->
Bradv, For future reference, can you explain how the unblock request was formatted improperly, or why my request didn't show up on the queue? Is this the right code for the unblock request: "{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}"? Isonomia01 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241218164800","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241218164800-Bradv-20241218142800","replies":["c-Bbb23-20241218165400-Isonomia01-20241218164800"]}}-->
Yes, but yours starts with "{{unblock reviewed".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241218165400","author":"Bbb23","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bbb23-20241218165400-Isonomia01-20241218164800","replies":[]}}-->
I was blocked because I engaged in a revert war (I made two reverts without explicit consensus; if it seems otherwise, please ask me about the details and give me a chance to clarify).
I added a discussion on the talk page, and left the discussion on the talk page for six months. I then added a section to the article. After a section of my addition was removed, I reverted the removal, because I felt like the talk page should have been utilized for consensus discussion. I tried to direct discussion to the talk page. After the section was removed by someone else, I again reverted the removal (for a second time), and I tried again to direct discussion to the talk page.
I apologize for the second revert. I acknowledge that I shouldn't have reverted the second time.
My assurances to the community:
I intend to act in good faith, within the scope of the rules to the best of my ability, and to make a reasonably diligent inquiry into all rules that are relevant to anything regarding my edits. I promise that I will remain reasonably calm (I am generally a calm person, but am subject to emotion like every other human, and I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. I promise to be polite, courteous, and respectful. I want to be forthright that this does not mean that I am promising not to cite the rules to people or to engage with people about or otherwise address things that I disagree with, or feel are violations of the rules.
I will not participate in revert wars. I sincerely apologize for that.
I promise to strive to be as neutral and objective, openminded to the possibility of flaws in myself, and to act faithfully and in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, to make a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia, as I can.
Isonomia01 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241218190300","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241218190300-Fourth_Unblock_Request","replies":[]}}-->
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.
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 was blocked because I engaged in a revert war (I made two reverts without explicit consensus; if it seems otherwise, please ask me about the details and give me a chance to clarify).
I added a discussion on the talk page, and left the discussion on the talk page for six months. I then added a section to the article. After a section of my addition was removed, I reverted the removal, because I felt like the talk page should have been utilized for consensus discussion. I tried to direct discussion to the talk page. After the section was removed by someone else, I again reverted the removal (for a second time), and I tried again to direct discussion to the talk page.
I apologize for the second revert. I acknowledge that I shouldn't have reverted the second time.
My assurances to the community:
I intend to act in good faith, within the scope of the rules to the best of my ability, and to make a reasonably diligent inquiry into all rules that are relevant to anything regarding my edits. I promise that I will remain reasonably calm (I am generally a calm person, but am subject to emotion like every other human, and I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. I promise to be polite, courteous, and respectful. I want to be forthright that this does not mean that I am promising not to cite the rules to people or to engage with people about or otherwise address things that I disagree with, or feel are violations of the rules.
I will not participate in revert wars. I sincerely apologize for that.
I promise to strive to be as neutral and objective, openminded to the possibility of flaws in myself, and to act faithfully and in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, to make a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia, as I can.
[[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (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 was blocked because I engaged in a revert war (I made two reverts without explicit consensus; if it seems otherwise, please ask me about the details and give me a chance to clarify).
I added a discussion on the talk page, and left the discussion on the talk page for six months. I then added a section to the article. After a section of my addition was removed, I reverted the removal, because I felt like the talk page should have been utilized for consensus discussion. I tried to direct discussion to the talk page. After the section was removed by someone else, I again reverted the removal (for a second time), and I tried again to direct discussion to the talk page.
I apologize for the second revert. I acknowledge that I shouldn't have reverted the second time.
My assurances to the community:
I intend to act in good faith, within the scope of the rules to the best of my ability, and to make a reasonably diligent inquiry into all rules that are relevant to anything regarding my edits. I promise that I will remain reasonably calm (I am generally a calm person, but am subject to emotion like every other human, and I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. I promise to be polite, courteous, and respectful. I want to be forthright that this does not mean that I am promising not to cite the rules to people or to engage with people about or otherwise address things that I disagree with, or feel are violations of the rules.
I will not participate in revert wars. I sincerely apologize for that.
I promise to strive to be as neutral and objective, openminded to the possibility of flaws in myself, and to act faithfully and in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, to make a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia, as I can.
[[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (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 was blocked because I engaged in a revert war (I made two reverts without explicit consensus; if it seems otherwise, please ask me about the details and give me a chance to clarify).
I added a discussion on the talk page, and left the discussion on the talk page for six months. I then added a section to the article. After a section of my addition was removed, I reverted the removal, because I felt like the talk page should have been utilized for consensus discussion. I tried to direct discussion to the talk page. After the section was removed by someone else, I again reverted the removal (for a second time), and I tried again to direct discussion to the talk page.
I apologize for the second revert. I acknowledge that I shouldn't have reverted the second time.
My assurances to the community:
I intend to act in good faith, within the scope of the rules to the best of my ability, and to make a reasonably diligent inquiry into all rules that are relevant to anything regarding my edits. I promise that I will remain reasonably calm (I am generally a calm person, but am subject to emotion like every other human, and I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. I promise to be polite, courteous, and respectful. I want to be forthright that this does not mean that I am promising not to cite the rules to people or to engage with people about or otherwise address things that I disagree with, or feel are violations of the rules.
I will not participate in revert wars. I sincerely apologize for that.
I promise to strive to be as neutral and objective, openminded to the possibility of flaws in myself, and to act faithfully and in accordance with Wikipedia's mission, to make a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia, as I can.
[[User:Isonomia01|Isonomia01]] ([[User talk:Isonomia01#top|talk]]) 19:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Isonomia01, your recent 9 edits to parts of this page other than the fourth unblock request demonstrate that you should not be unblocked. You went through and changed history through striking and refactoring (you also improperly refactored the declined second unblock request, but that particular change looks inadvertent to me). To the admin who reviews the latest unblock request: although right now I don't intend to do it, I agree with Drmies's earlier comments about increasing this block to indefinite and revoking TPA. The user clearly is unable to edit Wikipedia in a collaborative manner. They distort the past to suit their own objectives and cannot be trusted to keep any "promises" they make about the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219144900","author":"Bbb23","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bbb23-20241219144900-Fourth_Unblock_Request","replies":["c-Isonomia01-20241219193800-Bbb23-20241219144900","c-Isonomia01-20241220044500-Bbb23-20241219144900"]}}-->
Bbb23, you should not be involving yourself further in this to advocate that I should not be unblocked.
You blocked me. You accused me of engaging in edit wars. I've reviewed the rules, and -- while I freely admit that I should not have made the second edit, and I apologize for it -- I do not see any language in the rules either stating that a second revert is a even a violation of the rules, nor do I see any language in the rules saying that a block would ever be justified for two reverts. Again, I want to note a few things: (1) I apologize for the second revert, (2) I consciously stopped engaging in the reversions, and resorted to dialogue.
The rules say that for a first offense for revert warring, a 24 hour block is customary.
I just want to make sure we are on the same page here. You did in fact delete content from my userpage. Isn't that true?
I struckthrough my own text -- nobody else's. The time stamp, and the old struck-through text is there for people to see. From my perspective, I am showing that I am acknowledging that I should be calm and polite, and engage with people in a proper way. Am I not allowed to do that?
I don't know what you mean by "refactoring".
I am not the one distorting the facts. That's a false accusation. Go ahead and provide actual details of what you mean. The rules prohibit people from making deliberate misrepresentations. I did not remove any content from this talk page. I did not strikethrough any text except for my own. Please feel more than welcome to explain further what you mean. I am challenging the truth of your assertion.
Advocating that I should be indefinitely blocked for strikethroughing my own text and replacing it with more clear and polite language doesn't seem very nice to me. Isonomia01 (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219193800","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241219193800-Bbb23-20241219144900","replies":["c-Bbb23-20241219200300-Isonomia01-20241219193800"]}}-->
I'm just going to address a few points in response to your comments above. I remind you that contrary to what you think, the absence of a response does not mean I agree with your comment. First, I did not delete any content from this page. Second, see WP:REFACTOR. Third, there's no earthly reason why I "should not be involving [myself] further in this to advocate that [you] should not be unblocked." I want to make it clear to the admin who responds to your latest unblock request that not only do I oppose any unblock, but I recommend additional sanctions. Your comments in response to what I said continue to demonstrate your WP:BATTLEGROUND, legalistic/argumentative mentality, which is not conducive to editing constructively on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219200300","author":"Bbb23","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bbb23-20241219200300-Isonomia01-20241219193800","replies":["c-Isonomia01-20241219202900-Bbb23-20241219200300"]}}-->
I said my *user page*, not my user *talk* page. So I'll ask again, because I believe clarifying this is relevant: Isn't it true that you deleted content from my *user page* (not "this" page (the talk page))? You seemed to say, in response to me asking that, "First, I did not delete any content from this page." That sounds like a no, to me. But if we look at revision history of my user page, we see "17:13, 9 December 2024Bbb23talkcontribs 312 bytes −639 remove blp violation undo". But you represented that you didn't? You also criticized me on Drmies' talk page.
Again, I want to reiterate that I am challenging the truth of your assertion that I "distorted" anything, and that all I did was strikethrough my own text, and, while leaving the original, 'replace' (not really "replace") it with language that was more clear and polite. I said that you're welcome to further explain or support your assertion, and that invitation remains open, if you'd like to add any support for the assertion you made about my recent edits.
If there is any reason for me to not make the statements you refer to, I honestly don't see what those might be.
I don't have time to go into the reasons why you should not be advocating that I should be permablocked in this situation, but the gist of it is that it's contrary to the language of the rules. You're welcome to discuss your viewpoints and evidence. I just think it's not appropriate for people who were involved in the dispute to be advocating to their associates that the user they are in a dispute with should be permablocked, in these circumstances. I can find/quote citations when I get back.
On a cursory review of the refactoring article, it is my stance that I did not refactor anything. All I did was respond to people without altering anything, and I strike-through my own text that was in response to Magnolia and add a new addition to be more clear. It's not like I altered a timestamp or anything. This can be verified. I didn't delete anything. I didn't move anything around, or anything like that. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219202900","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241219202900-Bbb23-20241219200300","replies":["c-Bbb23-20241219232900-Isonomia01-20241219202900"]}}-->
Some editors refer to their "userpage" when they mean their Talk page. You're correct, I removed what was an unsourced WP:BLP violation from your userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241219232900","author":"Bbb23","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Bbb23-20241219232900-Isonomia01-20241219202900","replies":[]}}-->
Bbb23, You also assert, "The user clearly is unable to edit Wikipedia in a collaborative manner." Isn't it true though, that I was the only one to engage on the talk page for 6 months in consensus discussion, until after I was blocked? (I am requesting that you answer this.)
It is my impression that the only one I had a content dispute with that wasn't resolve is Magnolia. I'm not including Binksternet, because I was blocked before consensus discussion could take place, and it seems like an objectively minor dispute.
You assert, "They distort the past to suit their own objectives". It is my stance that this is patently false. I provided you the opportunity to explain what you meant, and you didn't. I told you I was challenging the truth of that. You are still welcome to clarify what you mean by that.
You assert, "[They] cannot be trusted to keep any "promises" they make about the future." I dispute this. This is speculation. You don't know whether this is true or false. I do know whether it is true or false. I honor my word. And I'll reiterate those promises again. I promise that I will be polite and courteous with everyone. I promise that I will be as calm as I humanly can be, and I promise to step back when I get frustrated with this. I promise to be as faithful to the mission of Wikipedia to make a neutral encyclopedia as I can. I acknowledge that I am human and imperfect, and I will be open to that. I will hear people out respectfully (I'm not promising to agree with them). I will respect the consensus of the community. I'll work on being more concise. I will try to assume good faith more as well. This community has my word. I don't take that lightly.
As I told you on Drmies' talk page, if there's anything you want to address that I haven't properly acknowledged, you can tell me. I will hear you out respectfully. Isonomia01 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241220044500","author":"Isonomia01","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isonomia01-20241220044500-Bbb23-20241219144900","replies":["c-Fantastic_Mr._Fox-20241220151600-Isonomia01-20241220044500"]}}-->
Isonomia, this is your fourth unblock request. I'm not interested in what happened for you to get the the block, but a glance over your comments and the fact you are so adamant about removing this week-long block indicates you are frustrated and perhaps not thinking straight. The following is a very badly named article that deserves a rename, but I suggest you read over WP:HOTHEADS. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241220151600","author":"Fantastic Mr. Fox","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fantastic_Mr._Fox-20241220151600-Isonomia01-20241220044500","replies":[]}}-->
