User talk:AP295

I have blocked your account for a month following your continued refusal to get the point on RfD, given your past conduct issues here and elsewhere. If you want to appeal, you may use Template:Unblock and another admin will review. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ajraddatz is referring to this RfD [1]. Ajraddatz, are editors obliged to let falsehoods/distortions about ongoing war crimes stand uncontested? If not then there was no reason to block me. If so, I'd like to see it added to site policy. Were my arguments incorrect? If so then please do refute them. I hope they are wrong. "If you want to appeal [...]" In my experience, appeals are not generally taken seriously, at least not in any objective sense with respect to site policy. The whole appeal process is just part of the furniture, and since it's only a month I probably won't bother. I also notice that my counterpart in that dispute was not sanctioned. I do not ask you to sanction them, but to explain what they did correctly that I seem to be missing. AP295 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the RfD actually has gone off topic. Instead of reputably-sourced information about ongoing war crimes, editors are talking about right-wing/left-wing bias on wikipedia, Trump, Liberals, etc. The subject has shifted from Israel, Gaza and the correctness of the page in question to meaningless, immaterial drivel. The former was on-topic and very relevant, the latter not so much. Cui bono? AP295 (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not...

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: As far as I can tell, Ajraddatz has blocked me because a discussion I was involved in discussion was allegedly off-topic. This is a dishonest claim, which is why they do not own up to it above, instead making the vague charge of "continued refusal to get the point on RfD". They collapsed several discussions in the RfD (only some of which I was involved in), remarking that they were off-topic. My reply to this, which explains why my comments were/are directly relevant and cites official policy, went unanswered. After that, they collapsed another discussion I was involved in and which was also on-topic, blocking me shortly thereafter. The other editor in that discussion was not blocked (nor do I ask that they be), despite having made just as many comments. My comments cite reputable sources and are accurate to the best of my knowlege. They directly concern the correctness of the page in question and the truth/falsehood of relevant claims made by others. By any honest or reasonable interpretation they are on-topic. The discourse is also a morally and ethically serious one. Using the collapse template to hide relevant discussions (with the caption "off topic discussion") and handing out a block to only one participant is against official site policy (as I explained in the linked reply), and has a chilling effect on the rest of the discourse. I've done no harm except to some of the falsehoods put forward by others. That is a positive contribution, no? AP295 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) An addendum: Ajraddatz wrote the following on one of the involved editor's talk pages: "The intent of the discussion is figuring out whether that page could be considered advocacy that could be included on Meta under the project's scope - the actual facts of the subject are not as relevant to that discussion". This statement is absurd. If terrible war crimes and violations of the genocide convention are being committed (and by all indications, they are), then the page in question is fully justified on grounds of common decency and humanity. If not then it would need to be taken down. "We simply don't have the expertise / community resources to come to a factual decision on a complex political subject like that, nor do we need to on an RfD." This is a cop out. There is no reason that whoever handles the RfD cannot make a reasonable judgement based on the arguments given. That's how every RfC or RfD works. "and I tried using "off-topic" as a way to describe that without taking sides or downplaying the real-life conflict" Why/how should anyone have guessed that? AP295 (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) AP295 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: I think that a month sounds fine, especially in comparison to your blocks at other sites. I would encourage you to watch how you express yourself about other people at this site. Please note Meta:Civility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Please be more specific. Your reply, which is vague and insinuating, and does not address any part of my appeal, does not mean anything to me. AP295 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC) @Billinghurst: I hope you don't think I'm just being glib here. I would like to know which rule or rules I've allegedly broken. You imply that I have been uncivil, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely whether or not the discussion I had been participating in was on topic (it clearly was). The accusation Ajraddatz makes, "Not getting the point", is a vague charge to say the least, but presumably the block was issued in response to the discussion Ajraddatz collapsed here . As I explained above, I replied to Ajraddatz shortly after he collapsed some other discussions, informing Ajraddatz that I believed those discussions I participated in were on topic and cited relevant official policy. I did this before engaging in the latter discussion and Ajraddatz did not reply except to issue this lengthy block after the discussion ended. Are users accountable to site policy? Are stewards? It would seem I've been blocked on a whim. Even if site policy prohibited insubordination itself, one would still be hard-put to support that charge, as Ajraddatz did not respond when, in the RfD, I cited supporting policy which explicitly states that users should be given the benefit of the doubt on the question of relevance and collapse templates. At any rate, the RfD is over with, so I'd appreciate it if you'd unblock me and take back the accusations of incivility and disruption. AP295 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC) P.S. I trust that the above, which is nothing more than a petition for basic objectivity and accountability w.r.t. site policy, does not constitute "wiki-lawyering". AP295 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

Note

Hi, seeing your new RfC (Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability), please resist the urge to comment on every comment made by another user. It isn't productive or helpful to the discussion. You've said your bit, it's now time to let the community discuss. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"it's now time to let the community discuss." I'm not stopping anyone. Anyone is welcome to reply at any time. You can see how some replies ignore points I've already made, acting as though I haven't even addressed their objections at all. Such replies are rhetorical and frankly dishonest. I'll ask the same question that I asked you more than a month ago: must I allow falsehoods or eristic stand uncontested? If so it would not be a real discussion, but an exercise. If someone merely votes "oppose" then I will not stop them, but if someone repeats the same specious argument that others have - and which I have both addressed preemptively in the original proposal and highlighted again when others ignored it - then why should I not reply? If you'll block me for doing so I won't, but then I would expect you to moderate the repeated objections that are rhetorical in character and not just my good-faith counterarguments that address them. AP295 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

At any rate, I may add parts to the addendum as I see fit (with dated signature). I'd be remiss if I didn't also explicitly point out that your message (most of which I address in my first reply) is predicated upon the notion that my participation prevents others from responding. Surely you know that isn't true, yet you write "you've said your bit, it's now time to let the community discuss" as if the RfC were a physical discussion or meeting in which I have had the floor for too long and must give up the floor so others may speak. Nobody is literally "speaking" and as I said above, anyone can respond at any time. Why shouldn't I reply to someone if I have something to add in any case (let alone when a reply seems rhetorical and less than honest)? Surely you've seen my userpage here. Like I said, I expect you to be objective in your moderation of the discussion. AP295 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See w:WP:BLUDGEON, this is a pretty common concept across the wikisphere. Dominating a discussion is off-putting to other editors and disruptive to the process. And, I almost hesitate to say this because after years of just not getting it I doubt anything I say will make you understand, but... Meta and the other projects are social spaces. They are built, fundamentally, on people getting together to work on a common goal. On Wikipedia that's building an encyclopedia, here it's supporting the network with governance and administration. How you interact with people matters, just like in any other social space. Most people (especially the people who don't get blocked repeatedly) have figured out that to be a part of the community, you need to come with humility, a desire to work well with others, and a productive attitude. To be totally frank, you really lack all of those. The purpose here isn't to be always right, or present the best pseudo-legal argument. It's to work with others to accomplish a purpose. It's to say your piece in a discussion and then step back to give space to everyone else. It's to admit when you are wrong, work to understand when others seem to be upset at your actions. You really just don't seem to understand that. So consider this your final warning. Either figure out how to be part of the community, or I imagine the next step will be an indef block here and a lock of your account. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"How you interact with people matters" I show respect and decency to others, and to the best of my ability I try to remain objective and admit when I'm wrong. "To be totally frank, you really lack all of those." What I lack is the fawning capitulance you seem to expect, and which those who have self-respect invariably find repellent. (And I also notice your humility doesn't stop you from issuing broad character judgements about others.) "It's to work with others to accomplish a purpose." I am trying to do just that, yet you are telling me that I'm not to reply for some indeterminate amount of time to "let the community discuss", despite that I'm not stopping anyone from discussing anything. How am I supposed to interpret that? None of my replies are inappropriate, and in fact I think they're all perfectly warranted. It's my own RfC. What's the point of complaining that I've replied to too many people unless you're trying to exclude me from the conversation and haven't found any fault with any of my individual contributions? AP295 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And if you do block me, then please permalink this page and the RfC at the time I'm blocked in the block log entry. I assume I won't be blocked for replying on my own talk page, and nobody has posted anything else yet in the RfC - which again I trust will be moderated impartially if people start spamming arguments I've already refuted - so I don't think we'll have a problem but I've been wrong before. AP295 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

AP295, please, stop responding right now! Take a pause for week. And stop editing the request for comments. Against the powers that be, you are entirely powerless. You can be much more helpful and influential on Meta by staying unblocked. It would be a pity to lose your input. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well thanks for the warning, I had the impression you despised me. I am not "bludgeoning" anyone, but pointing out the inconsistencies in some of the objections to this idea, all of which so far have come from sysops (who should not represent or enforce "community consensus" in any case, let alone in this RfC). This is how any open discourse must work if it's to be productive. My suggestion is a very reasonable one but it will require a deep change in habit for the powers that be on various wikimedia projects. It would make no difference if I waited a day, a week or a decade. My inclination will not change if it's an argument worth making. If they are unwilling to entertain any discussion of accountability then that is their sin. It is not my object to harm the project but to improve it. AP295 (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

For example, just look at A09's last reply. "Admins who are abusive, will abuse further no matter UCOC rules." I had addressed this earlier: If it doesn't deter an abusive admin, they'd have to take away the admin's privileges in order to maintain the project's reputation - exactly as it should be. " Your proposal is pointless to me." A non-argument. " As well is your comparison with Highway Patrol, they are paid when filling citation." I'm sure there would be willing volunteers who don't mind being fair and accountable, if not him/her/them. "We aren't and WM community shall not create additional burdens when handling blocks." It would take only an extra moment (if that) and I've already explained how it could be easily scaled. " Your argument about covering blocks is pointless and patently false, that's why block logs exist." What the hell are they talking about? What do they mean by "covering blocks"? Apparently it does not mean including essential information about them. " I'm not spending any more time on this discussion because you're the one making it a timesink." Convenient they make this indignant exit only after I've been told I'm not allowed dispute their statements. So far I've let their nonsensical reply stand uncontested. Why should I have to though, aside from Ajraddatz threatening to hit me with the banhammer (which sounds a lot more like bludgeoning than anything I've done)? I've replied to Pppery and SHB2000 because they've tried another angle, though they're also obviously wrong. AP295 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess that both you and I agree that w:WP:BLUDGEON is a very bad page that is not Meta policy, not Wikipedia policy, has analogues in almost no projects other than the English Wikipedia as per its Wikidata item, is not supported by any traceable consensus, and should not exist or be moved to user space. Thus, it is untrue that it is "a pretty common concept across the wikisphere". But that will not prevent Ajraddatz from blocking you indef. The best practical procedure seems to be to take the threats by Ajraddatz seriously and disengage for a considerable period of time. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do leave a comment in the RfC if you like. I agree with the gist of your argument. More generally, these projects (particularly Wikipedia) market and promote themselves as a reflection of public <consensus>, while in fact they seem to be shaped and managed by a relatively small cadre of editors and admins who merely pose as representatives of the public. They claim authority but remain unaccountable to the public and lack any practical obligation to fairly enforce or adhere to official policy. Likewise, the content itself is somewhat falsely presented, as people will tend to assume it withstands public scrutiny. That is what I hope to address here. AP295 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Just adding that, firstly, I am not treatening so much as enforcing behavioural standards as expected by the community here. It is within the scope of my responsibility as an admin to identify behaviour that falls short of the expectations here, and identify potential sanctions where necessary or appropriate. And secondly, I do not have unilateral authority; any actions or warnings I take or give can be reviewed by the community. M:RFH is the appropriate venue, if you believe they are unfair or incorrect. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Just adding that, firstly, I am not treatening so much as enforcing behavioural standards as expected by the community here." Who expects you to terminate a civil, relevant dispute or conversation in an RfC - which exists precisely to solicit conversation in the first place? How shall I know when I'm allowed to reply again, in my own RfC? When does this arbitrary prohibition expire? AP295 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not ”your” RfC. See W:WP:OWN, which you will probably say is a very bad, wrong, and stupid essay but is nonetheless very true on an explicit legal basis (all content you contribute here is automatically released under an irrevocable CC license) Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Duly noted. I should point out though that W:WP:OWN is not an essay, but official policy. Further, releasing one's content under some CC license does not actually mean that one no longer owns it, AFAIK. It's still the intellectual property of whoever wrote it. I call it "my RfC" because I composed it, not to imply that I own the page itself. At any rate, it's important to distinguish official site policy from a user's essays, and this is an important part of my point. Also, clearly, it's a bit absurd that I'm asked not to participate in it for an arbitrary length of time, though I'll oblige for now. If someone posts something exceptionally nonsensical I will probably address it at some point, however. AP295 (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, disengage from the RfC. Don't get yourself blocked. The RfC is going to fail by a large margin: the reason there are so many bad blocks and ridiculously bad administration in too many wikis is that those who wield power want it that way. These people are going to land in that RfC and post their opposes, and you can do nothing about it. They are not going to change their mind. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

For admins: if you want to prevent AP295 from posting to the RfC and feel authorized to do so, I propose you block him specifically from the page Requests for comment/The block log lacks useful information - basic requirements for sysop/admin accountability‎ for a month; that should address your concern. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"The RfC is going to fail by a large margin:" Discounting admin votes (who should not represent "community consensus" in this case, or in any case), everyone else is unanimously in favor. "the reason there are so many bad blocks and ridiculously bad administration in too many wikis is that those who wield power want it that way." I imagine so. In this case, you can just sit back and watch them make bad excuses in the RfC. Nobody is obliged to let bad excuses and falsehoods stand uncontested, however. AP295 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You should cast your own vote and refute one or two of the nonsensical arguments if you care about it. Then I would not have to make so many arguments myself. I do appreciate your concern, but it would be more helpful if you'd participate instead of trying to dissuade me from doing so. AP295 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

One last thing; earlier you said "You can be much more helpful and influential on Meta by staying unblocked." I don't intend to get myself blocked, nor have I done anything that warrants it. However, I somewhat disagree with the spirit of this suggestion. One either accepts their intellectual neutering and resigns themselves to making weak, passive-aggressive gestures, or one rejects the idea that their thoughts and opinions shall be dictated by others. There is no difference to be split on this question. AP295 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

AP295, you don’t seem to get that while w:wp:BLUDGEON is often misused, abused or over-cited (like everything on enwiki) it’s a fundamentally good idea. 99.9% nobody ever changes their mind on a topic, so “make your case and leave” is a legitimate strategy. Arguing your case with a majority of opposers doesn’t change minds and does make you seem incredibly annoying and fanatical. Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They may or may not change their mind but obviously one should not let a falsehood stand without any objection, not least for the sake of the observer. If anyone finds something wrong with any of my arguments then they're welcome to point it out, and I should not be prohibited from doing the same. That's what a discussion is. In my experience, admins typically use w:WP:BLUDGEON to shut down criticism and other legitimate discourse. It is not a good idea. To always "make one's case and leave" amounts to posturing. An objective observer isn't going to be annoyed by objective arguments, regardless of whether they're made by just as many different users or only one user. AP295 (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

In something that is a straight vote, there is little point in arguing even for the sake of a hypothetical observer. I mean, yeah I sometimes call out particularly bad arguments in such discussions, but if someone put thought into their case or obviously isn’t going to change their mind I won’t refute them for the sake of refuting. At a certain point you have to accept that sometimes people just don’t agree with your stance even if you are certain to death of its rightness. Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"At a certain point you have to accept that sometimes people just don’t agree with your stance" I do. You seem to labor under the false belief that I make the argument entirely for the sake of the person I'm arguing with. It's also worth remembering that if one never makes an argument, the skill atrophies or winds up undeveloped. "In something that is a straight vote, there is little point in arguing even for the sake of a hypothetical observer." I disagree with that. AP295 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: See the my RfC, my userpage and the above discussion. It speaks for itself. I did nothing wrong whatsoever. It was my earnest attempt to improve Wikimedia projects for future editors, and I'd do again. AP295 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: No valid reason provided. You need to convince us that the block is no longer necessary because you have understood what you have been blocked for, that you will not repeat the same behavior that got you blocked, what you will do if unblocked, and why the block will no longer be necessary to prevent disruption to Meta. EPIC (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-