User talk:Isonomia01

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

December 2024

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 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. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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]

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]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Sonoma County, California. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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]

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 Rules 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]

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]

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.

Second Unblock Request

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Third Unblock Request

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In light of WP:NOTTHEM, I am going to take the following approach. I'm going to list my interpretation of what I am being accused of, and provide my response.

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". Okay, but frankly that is not valid justification for threatening me with a permablock. I don't agree with the use of the term "rant" though, because I think that there are elements of "ranting" that are not applicable to my writing, such as offtopicness.

Non-neutrality. The section in question was accused of non-neutral language. There has not been consensus discussion yet, because I was blocked before this could happen.

If there's anything else significant, that I have forgotten, missed, or didn't give adequate attention to, I am open to hearing it, or pointed to where it is so I can read it, and providing a response.

My assurances to the community: I intend to act in good faith, I intend to act within the scope of the rules to the absolute best of my ability, and I intend 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 subject to emotion, but I will step back when appropriate), and to be respectful of others. 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 things they've done that I disagree with.

Also, 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. My interpretation is that I remained reasonably calm, objective, and honest throughout this process. I'm sorry I missed WP:NOTTHEM before.

Isonomia01 (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.