Jump to content

User talk:Black Kite/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks

Thanks for always being so even handed in your rope as an admin . And sorry for being a bit of a pest at ANI. All the best. Bacondrum 00:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Green for hope

Lenten Rose

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note

@Black Kite: Please check your email, if you haven't yet. --Chillabit (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Dominion Voting Systems

Your revert of my edit without participation on the article's Talk Page is noted. This is not WP:SYNTH. Senators Lix Warren, Ron Wyden and Amy Klobuchar did all the SYNTH in their letter. They pulled together multiple security concerns expressed in multiple mainstream, reliable sources. Read the footnotes in that letter, they are extensive. Also please review the video of the Atlantic Council conference. All, or almost all, of the speakers at the conference were former Obama Admin officials. These are Democrats expressing these concerns about the security of Dominion (and other) voting machines and related software. I urge you to restore my edit and participate on the article Talk Page. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't the lead paragraph. It's between the second and third paragraphs. And these were significant events in the company's history. Rather than an "either the lead or the Reliability section," why not both? Deal with the 2017-2020 period briefly in the lead section (between the second and third paragraphs), and in greater detail below. Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry - I was unclear - I meant the lead section. It's not significant except as regards reliability. And putting it before the election part insinuates that Trump's claims may have had merit, even though they didn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The portion of Trump's claims about undetected election fraud do have some merit, as reflected in a recent dissenting opinion by Clarence Thomas. Three Democratic senators, as well as several former Obama Admin officials on the Atlantic Council, and CNN reporters covering hacker conventions, shared those concerns in 2017-2019 ... but have now mysteriously fallen silent about those concerns. And even if those claims didn't have any merit at all, it is still a significant development in the history of the company and its products, so it belongs in the lead section. Please, let's have this discussion on the article Talk page. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, that well known neutral figure Clarence Thomas. Forgive me if I don't take that seriously. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Every bit as neutral and unbiased as the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wore a special necklace every time one of her many, many dissenting opinions was announced. I'm sure you hold her memory in the highest regard, as do I. But perhaps not for the same reasons. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Since I'm not American, not really. And I don't really care aout the election either, for the same reasons. But I can reliably determine when information is being introduced into an article with an agenda, having been here 15 years. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
My only agenda here is publishing a neutral, well sourced encyclopedia article that covers Dominion's entire history in a completely NPOV way. Right now it's not NPOV. Far too heavy on the November 2020-March 2021 period, when Team Trump, QAnon and their tribe of nuts were making ridiculous claims about Dominion. Absolutely nothing on the 2016-19 period, when the Democrats and the mainstream media were criticizing Dominion with facts and data and 10-minute successful hacks of their voting machines by 11-year-olds. I wonder why? Flavor of the Month (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Glenn Roeder

On 1 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Glenn Roeder, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Note 2

@Black Kite:, sent a reply. --Chillabit (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism page block

Since this discussion appears to be happening elsewhere as well, could it stick to one location please? Thanks

You blocked me from editing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk page, giving this rationale: “Even a cursory reading of Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory makes it very clear that the page - and its many other editors - need a rest from Swood100's persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick.”

Could you clarify what you see as “persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick”? Take the section POV pushing, for example. It was during this that Bacondrum concluded that charges should be brought against me. Where did I go over the line? Thanks. — Swood100 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure that the discussion shows that you had exhausted other editor's patience at that point. There's absolutely no problem with holding a viewpoint which is against the consensus of others, but the persistent WP:BLUDGEONing of the talkpage (and for that matter, making repeated edits to the article against consensus) were a problem. Just to note that any block can be reversed if an editor shows that they can learn from the issue, though. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m going to ask that you give an example of my WP:BLUDGEONing of the talkpage. I admit that I try to articulate my position with some specificity, and that this can result in more than one paragraph of explanation, but I am confident that my edits on the talkpage were not repetitive, disingenuous, or lacking in good faith. If you disagree, please explain.
(and for that matter, making repeated edits to the article against consensus) were a problem
I know that Bacondrum accused me of that, but what exactly were the repeated edits against consensus? I realize that you are a busy person, but you did block me from this article for three months and that does seem to create some sort of an obligation to explain, in a simple and concrete manner, the specifics of the offense you found me guilty of. In particular, (a) what was the consensus, (b) what were the repeated edits against consensus, and (c) how did these edits contravene consensus? It was at this point that Bacondrum would refuse to reply, would accuse me of sealioning, and would tell me that it has all been explained to me and that he is not going to do so again.
The actual edits at issue here can be seen by looking at the history. Bacondrum made a revert at 21:03: January 6, 2021, that reverted all my edits back to the 20:23 January 2, 2021 edit of OAbot. These are the objectionable edits that Bacondrum believes warrant my being blocked from this article. The talkpage section POV pushing was created right after Bacondrum’s revert and contains the subsequent discussion. I'm afraid that without your explanation I will be unable to “learn from the issue”. Thanks. — Swood100 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Swood, you had a perfectly good opportunity to learn from the discussion here. You seem remarkably reluctant to avail yourself of that opportunity, for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: your approach has been to consistently refuse to explain your objections. For example, in the talkpage section POV pushing I was trying to get an explanation for what was wrong with the edits that Bacondrum reverted. You kept resisting and I kept pushing. (Is this an example of WP:BLUDGEONing?) Finally, I put it to you like this:
Let’s get down to specifics so that we can make some progress. Please make your objection in a form similar to this: “X text in the proposed edit” violates [Y policy] because [Z reason].
Your reply was a flat refusal to make your objection in any such form. In our discussion on my Talk page you also refused to explain your objections. At one point I asked you to:
  • Explain what’s wrong with my source explaining that Marcuse’s theory of repressive tolerance was the birth hour of PC.
  • Explain why it is not relevant to this article whether or not the explanation of the conspiracy theorists bears any resemblance to reality.
You said that you don’t have to answer such questions, and took a similar approach with my other questions. But now that you have made an appearance here, you can be of service. Please help Black Kite with the questions I posed. The revert by Bacondrum made at 21:03: January 6, 2021 reverted eleven edits. What percentage of these edits do you think were properly reverted? With respect to the edits that were properly reverted, (a) what was the consensus that was violated, and (b) how did these edits contravene consensus? Concerning consensus, the guidelines say that editors relying on consensus should include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed. Will you provide such a link? This will enable us to clarify what the consensus was, as well as how long ago it was reached (the latter being relevant to whether it is disruptive to bring it up again on the Talkpage so soon after it was agreed upon). Thanks. — Swood100 (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe that your two bulleted questions - and, indeed, all of the plausible related questions - have in fact been answered on your talk page. To repeat myself, the problem with your Marcuse source is that you have no RS making the argument that the "Marcuse-political correctness genaeology" is a key element of the CT, so your but it's true! argument is strictly irrelevant. Likewise, I have explained at great length how it is not the business of this WP article - or indeed of any WP CT articles - to document precisely how far the arguments made by conspiracy theorists are based on consensus reality and where they go off into la-la land. This is only in scope in cases where reliable sources actually provide this sort of analysis, but since you lack those kinds of sources you have repeatedly proposed to do so based on unreliable sources and WP:OR. As far as diffs to document previous consensus, what particular issues seem to you to require diffs for documentation? I can hardly be expected to provide diffs documenting each and every point included in one of your WALLOFTEXT submissions, which only a WP:SEALION could expect.
Finally, with respect to the other specific question you did raise immediately above, Is this an example of WP:BLUDGEONing?, the answer is, Yes. You made a dozen edits to the article, which did not improve it. Bacondrum reverted them. Rather than seek Talk page consensus on specific edits - which is what policy enjoins us to do - you tried to reverse the ONUS with the question how did these edits contravene consensus? and especially with your instruction (against policy), Please make your objection in a form similar to this: “X text in the proposed edit” violates [Y policy] because [Z reason]. By contrast, per the best practice WP:BRD, the onus is on you to obtain affirmative consensus for your preferred changes. Instead you have attempted - and are still attempting, albeit in the wrong forum - to BLUDGEON the discussion with repeated questions and a kaleidoscope of (non-reliable or misinterpteted) sources, trying to shift the onus and insisting that other editors point out to you where the prior discussions took place and justify their conclusions to your satisfaction. That simply is not how the collegial process works on Wikipedia; I get the definite sense that you might be happier on another collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial:
You made a dozen edits to the article, which did not improve it. Bacondrum reverted them.
Is this how you are now characterizing these edits? Of the eleven edits that were reverted, six corrected errors and a seventh linked to another article. Upon reverting these edits Bacondrum’s comment included this: “This has all been discussed and refuted at talk, you are going against consensus.” Upon making his case at the administrator’s noticeboard he said: “Hi, we've got an editor who has spent a month pushing a view against consensus.”
Do you agree with Bacondrum that editing against consensus is an element of this matter that should be considered by Black Kite? If so, please state the pertinent consensus item(s). If you are objecting on the grounds of consensus the onus is not on me to figure out what consensus you might be referring to. Nor am I asking you to justify any consensus that was reached, much less justify it to my satisfaction. For each item, please include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed and explain how my edits contravened it. — Swood100 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Once again, I am not going to do that. The onus was on you to obtain positive consensus for the changes you wanted to see (once they had been reverted); the onus was not on the rest of the editors to explain to one editor how each of their edits did, or did not, violate a previous consensus or otherwise was or was not an improvement to the article. Once reverted, it was your job to convince the rest of us, Newimpartial (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: There is an objection to my edits to the article and to my proposals on the talkpage, as a result of which I have been blocked from editing. The complaint was made that my edits or proposals were of a nature that other editors have, by consensus, declared to be inappropriate for this article. The edits reverted by Bacondrum were said to exemplify this and my making those edits was said to show an inability to drop the stick, meaning that I should have known that such edits contravened the settled resolution of an editing dispute and my refusal to accept the resolution and move on was disruptive.
Would you characterize these reverted edits as exemplifying my inability to drop the stick? If so, it means that you believe that an issue was resolved and that I ignored that. Please state what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Would you characterize these reverted edits as exemplifying my inability to drop the stick? Yes. Please state what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. I have already done so, on your Talk page. Please see above. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Since this discussion appears to be happening esewhere as well, could it stick to one location please? Thanks
This discussion is not happening elsewhere as well.
I have already done so, on your Talk page.
For the benefit of Black Kite (and for my benefit as well), please cut and paste that portion of our previous discussion on my Talk page that explains, with reference to my inability to drop the stick, what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @Newimpartial: I neglected to ping you on the preceding. — Swood100 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: You were actually the one who was most vociferous about my flouting of consensus, and the one who brought the matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Perhaps you could respond to the same question that was put above to Newimpartial: would you characterize the edits of mine that you reverted (21:03, January 6, 2021) as exemplifying my inability to drop the stick? If so, it means that you believe that an editing issue had been resolved and that I ignored that, constituting disruption. (See above.) Please state what the editing issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Six hours x2!

Haha, great minds, etc. El_C 01:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and as an added funny, for reasons which I no longer recall, 6 has been my lucky number since early childhood (proof); though, that isn't why I picked it here — 12 seemed too long and 3 too short, so I split the difference. El_C 14:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Block needed

Hello, could you please block H Truck? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And nuke the creations... Pahunkat (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Pahunkat (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism - Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day

Please restore page to the original template prior to vandalism by Kate R Delaney, which first occurred on February 17, 2021. Please refer you page edits for further information. Thank you. MrsPhinch (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

From what I see in the edit history, Kate R DeLaney began altering the page on Feb 17, 2021. Will reversing Kate R DeLaney’s edits to its prior state restore page to its pre-vandalism state? TempoBravo (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving of Cultural Marxism page block discussion

This discussion is closed.

Why did you archive the Cultural Marxism page block section to Archive 83? I thought that we were in the middle of trying to determine whether my edits were improper. No longer? What is the resolution of that? What did you mean by “since collapsing didn't work”? — Swood100 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I thought you wanted it pasted to another venue, so I collapsed it leaving the history for someone to do that, but then the discussion carried on anyway. It's still there in the Archive page for someone to take it to whichever venue they wish. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’m just a little confused. You collapsed it with the suggestion that the discussion stick to one location. I replied that the discussion is not happening at any other location. I then asked Newimpartial, who had referred to an earlier discussion on my Talk page, to copy any relevant text from my Talk page and paste it here, so that both you and I could understand what his response was to my questions. What made you think that I wanted this discussion to be pasted to another venue (I’m not sure I even know what that means)? What is the status of my block? — Swood100 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope this conversation will at least result in a 90-day extension of your block, for some combination of IDONTHEARTHAT and NOTHERE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
For the benefit of Black Kite (and for my benefit as well), please cut and paste that portion of our previous discussion on my Talk page that explains, with reference to my inability to drop the stick, what the issue was, what the resolution was, and how my edits ignored that resolution. — Swood100 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not going to do that - the onus was on you to seek consensus for disputed content, not on other editors to drag out diffs so that you could nitpick various aspects of the existing consensus. For the same reason, I am not going to elaborate further on my already extensive explanation on your Talk, setting out the existing article-level consensus, nor will I provide additional diffs. As to your inability to drop the stick, you have shown that yet again in the five times you have insisted that others provide you with diffs showing your inability to drop the stick - literally, each time you have raised that issue, after the first, actually answers your own question. Which is why I think an additional 90 days (or perhaps a 1-year) block from Cultural Marxism is needed so that you learn to drop the stick and let it lie. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: It’s one thing for another editor to say that certain edits do not improve the article. But you are saying that I should have known that the edits reverted by Bacondrum contravened the settled resolution of an editing dispute and that my refusal to accept that resolution and move on was disruptive, so I should be blocked from editing. How is Black Kite supposed to evaluate such a claim unless the person making it provides a little clarification: what was the nature of the editing dispute, how was it resolved, and how did the edits in question conflict with that resolution? Why do you resist this? You are like the person who accuses another person of committing burglary, claims to be in possession of facts that would support a conviction on such a charge, but then refuses to disclose those facts and simply keeps repeating that the accused person is guilty and should be sentenced to prison. Why do you refuse to disclose what characteristic of the edits calls for sanctions against me? — Swood100 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: You were actually the one who was most vociferous about my flouting of consensus, and the one who brought the matter to the administrator's noticeboard. Would you weigh in on this question as well? — Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure you understand, Swood, that page (and other) bans and blocks are intended to prevent future disruption, not to impose restitution for past disruption. The only contributions your repeated questions about the past conviction (sic.) are making is to provide more and more evidence that - if your ban from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is allowed to lapse - you will resume disrupting the page, if only (and I hazard a guess that it won't actually be "only") to question what the consensus was that you tendentiously opposed last time, and even though this consensus has been explained to you in great detail on your Talk page. The relationships between the specific edits you made, which were then reverted, and the article-level consensus have no bearing at all on the policy-relevant question which is, if you are allowed to edit the page, will your activity be disruptive? The evidence from this Admin Talk page is a rather clear Yes!, which is why I believe the health of the project provides strong grounds for a longer ban. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: “That kind of edit is prohibited.” “Why?” “It has already been explained to you.” “No it hasn’t. Please explain it again or point me to a previous explanation.” “This is persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick. I’m going to enforcement.”

Do the Wikipedia rules allow a person accused of an editing offense to be penalized without having been presented with specific edits of his and an explanation as to how they constitute an offense? According to the U. S. Supreme Court:

To satisfy due process, “a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010)

When one editor doesn’t like the edits of another editor, or wishes to establish or enforce a POV consensus, can he simply take the matter to the administrator’s noticeboard, make a general accusation of a refusal to drop the stick, refuse to specify a settled resolution of an editing dispute, refuse to disclose facts that would show how a specific edit, or group of edits, ignored that settled resolution, and expect to have his charges upheld? That’s absurd. How can an uninvolved admin, in a reasonable amount of time, on an article having extensive talkpage archives, possibly be able to identify a consensus that is nowhere spelled out and that is actually an attempt to circumvent the NPOV requirements through hand-waving? The WP:NPOV page makes clear that attempts to establish POV editing limitations under the guise of consensus can be expected and are prohibited. However, what mechanism is there to enforce this?

Fundamental fairness requires that any editor who formally charges another editor with failure to observe the settled resolution of an editing dispute must have already specified what the resolution of the dispute was, which edits conflict with the resolution, and if it is not obvious, why the edits conflict with the resolution. This will (a) eliminate attempts to implement a POV scheme behind a façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here), (b) eliminate the unfairness of penalizing an editor without first explaining the nature of the offense and giving him an opportunity to defend himself, (c) reduce arbitrary enforcement of the rules against disruption by allowing the admin to quickly discover the subject of the specific editing dispute, the resolution that is being claimed, and the edits that are asserted to ignore that resolution.

If “everybody knows” what is being prohibited and why, then what is the objection to a requirement that that this be spelled out explicitly before an enforcement proceeding is begun? Do the drawbacks of requiring this exceed the potential benefits, such as an easier job for the admin, eliminating covert attempts to enforce a POV consensus, eliminating the requirement that editors adhere to unspecified rules or be penalized, and encouraging editors to make a bona fide effort to at least attempt to resolve their own conflicts by stating their positions clearly and concretely to each other before involving outsiders?

What is the justification for a refusal to articulate rules of conduct? Rules that nobody will articulate cannot be enforced. — Swood100 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Newimpartial: I should also have pinged you on this, though the questions were directed to Black Kite. — Swood100 (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here)? The consensus has been spelled out at great length on your Talk page. Speaking of which, giving him an opportunity to defend himself has most definitely happened on that page as well; haven't you had your appeals turned down three times already by various Admin?
Also, have you provided any evidence that, if you are allowed to edit Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory in the future, you will not resume civil POV-pushing and BLUDGEONing the page? Because that is the only thing that matters to your ban.
But sure, it is only a flesh wound. Clearly. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial:
What façade of consensus that nobody will articulate (as is happening here)?
The reference was to attempts to implement a POV scheme behind such a façade. For example, you have said that there is a consensus that it is not relevant to this article whether or not the explanation of the conspiracy theorists bears any resemblance to reality. The article states that the explanation of the conspiracy theorists bears no resemblance to reality. Yet you claim that by consensus the mere suggestion on the talkpage of a reliable source to contradict this assertion ignores the consensus that such a purpose is irrelevant, and that even making such a suggestion shows an inability to drop the stick and demonstrates the need for sanctions. Consider this:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. WP:NPOV
Whether the explanation of the conspiracy theorists bears any resemblance to reality cannot, consistent with NPOV, be asserted by the article to be false and the contradiction of this at the same time be declared by consensus to be inadmissible, and refusing to give up and go along with such a “consensus” does not constitute persistent badgering.
The consensus has been spelled out at great length on your Talk page.
Let’s take my edits concerning Jérôme Jamin that were reverted and said to constitute editing against consensus and an inability to drop the stick. One edit corrected an error in an existing quote and provided the remainder of the quote. Another gave Jamin's views as to the origin and development of the conspiracy theory. Can you point out where on my talkpage or anywhere else it was explained why these edits were against consensus? The fact that you refuse to do so here and now will raise red flags with any impartial observer.
Speaking of which, giving him an opportunity to defend himself has most definitely happened on that page as well; haven't you had your appeals turned down three times already by various Admin?
You missed the point of having the opportunity to defend oneself. A person does not have the opportunity to defend himself unless he is charged with committing specific acts and told why those acts constitute the offense charged. He has no opportunity to defend himself if he is simply charged with an offense (for example, ignoring a consensus) but no consensus is described and no specific edits violating that consensus are alleged, since he is deprived of the ability to argue that (a) the consensus did not exist, (b) the consensus is POV and invalid, or (c) the edits that were specified did not contradict the consensus.
It was declined by one admin because it was too verbose. It was declined by another because it did not address the reason for the block. As for the third admin, he or she did not address the issues I raised above and is no doubt comfortable with allowing charges of failure to adhere to a resolved issue without the necessity of specifying what the resolved issue was and what edits were in conflict with it. I disagree, for the reasons stated above.
But sure, it is only a flesh wound. Clearly.
Your reference is to a person who sticks to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Yet you continue to refuse to even state what consensus you are referring to and what edits violated that consensus. You have gotten this far without having been required to do that and you are hoping that it will hold up here as well. Facts justifying your charges are clearly not available, or else you would cite them. — Swood100 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Where does The article states that the explanation of the conspiracy theorists bears no resemblance to reality? It doesn't. As explained on your Talk page, if the flat earth CT is able to explain seasonal changes in the angle of the sun within its own explanatory framework, ther does not mean that this resemblance to reality needs to be recognized in the WP article on the subject. The same with "Cultural Marxism". NPOV requires that WP present FRINGE positions as FRINGE, and conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories; weaseling about but this part is true! would be a violation of NPOV.
Also, re: refusing to give up and go along with such a “consensus” does not constitute persistent badgering - yes, it literally does. This is precisely why you are banned from the Talk pages of your preferred editing target, and are likely to remain so.
Re: A person does not have the opportunity to defend himself unless he is charged with committing specific acts and told why those acts constitute the offense charged - Wikipedia does not have a legal system. It has a system to prevent editors from wasting the time of other editors through various forms of disruption. You will be allowed to edit Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory if and only if there is a reasonable likelihood that you will be able to do so without wasting the time of other editors through BLUDGEON and SEALION tactics. So far, your track record suggests that the balance of probabilities is otherwise.
Re: you continue to refuse to even state what consensus you are referring to and what edits violated that consensus - I have stated the existing consensus about Cultural Marxism on your Talk page, while also explaining why I have refused to provide additional diffs while doing so. The records of prior discussions are all found at, or linked to, Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Talk:Frankfurt School. The facts are all there, but I will not allow you to continue your prior practices of goalpost-moving and wikilawyering by providing additional citations. Whenever you are actually prepared to drop the stick and move on, I'm sure you will be welcomed into the WP editing community, but so far you do not appear to have taken WP:NOTTHEM sufficiently to heart. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, I've told Swood100 that they can no longer discuss this here. They've just moved the bludgeoning from the CM talk page to here. If you think you're too involved to enforce that with a block, please let me know if they continue here and I don't notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_83&oldid=1011789247"