[WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

Mon Dec 19 00:49:36 UTC 2005

Aw, man, I was gonna go and reblock you for a week again, but now you  
went and started wikilawyering, and now I can't, in good conscience.  
You totally should have shut the hell up for once! Oh well.

-Phil

On Dec 18, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

> karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time indefinitely.  He and  
> David Gerard
> both base their actions on totally baseless assumptions about my  
> psychology,
> motives, and intentions.
>
> As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
> 1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as  
> such?
> 2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
>
> I think (1) is obviously "yes" if for no other reason than that the
> consequences of it being "no" would be totally unacceptable to anyone
> seriously interested in creating a worthwhile encyclopedia; it is  
> (2) that is
> the contentious part.  I am honestly convinced that deletionists  
> are vandals;
> there are many who think otherwise.
>
> All I ask is that it either
>
>  (a) it be demonstrated that deletionists are not vandals (see my  
> argument at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? 
> title=User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman&oldid=30896997#Deletion_IS_vandalism.2 
> C_even_by_the_.22official.22_definition
> to find out why I think they are), in which case it would be safe  
> to unblock
> me immediately (although I would understand a block of up to a  
> week--I'd
> prefer a week after the particular incident in question, of course,  
> but I can
> also understand the week beginning on the day it is put in place)  
> because I
> am not intellectually dishonest and I do not engage in behavior I  
> know is
> wrong, or
>
>  (b) that it be accepted that deletionists are vandals (or that at  
> least it be
> accepted that this particular argument for why deletionists are  
> vandals has
> not been refuted, in which case it is not known one way or the  
> other--because
> after all, lack of refutation does not constitute, in and of itself,
> constitute proof), in which case I should of course be unblocked  
> outright.
>
> The thing is, karmafist and David Gerard have justified their  
> actions that "it
> is not acceptable to call someone a 'vandal' simply because he  
> disagrees with
> you"--and they are correct.  What is incorrect is their assumption  
> that I am
> calling deletionists "vandals" simply because I disagree with them-- 
> this is
> not the case; I am calling them "vandals" because I am honestly  
> convinced
> that they are (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will change both my  
> thinking
> and behavior) They may insist otherwise, but they are wrong.
> -- 
> Kurt Weber
> <kmw at armory.com>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l