User talk:Black Kite
|For Talk Page Archives, click here.|
|“You’re obliged to pretend respect for people and institutions you think absurd. You live attached in a cowardly fashion to moral and social conventions you despise, condemn, and know lack of all foundation." Octave Mirbeau|
|I am mostly retired; I do occasionally pop up when I think that someone's not doing something properly. Or I'm just having one of those days. You get the general idea.|
Right to a defense from accusations
Having defending people from being treated uncivily on two occasions this year, I now face a counter accusation that I believe is unfounded, without any merit and can be reasonably be called ridiculous. Without waiting to hear both sides, a 3rd editor takes the accusation uncritically as valid. They make negative comments against my intentions and suggest blocking me. I prepare my written defence successfully, which takes time and effort. I seek confirmation from four people who have been affected. The 3rd editor curtails these attempts, because apparently the four people are biased. This is not true and against the policy of assuming good faith. They go to their talk page to revert my communications and he insists that I do not contact people. Any reasonable person can see this is a injustice, that would be recognised as such in any system of dispute or arbitration.
The rule about canvassing applies to communications to unaffected people. It is not canvassing to contact an affected person, who was a part of the activity that included incivility. In this case canvassing would would be to contact someone who has no independent contribution to make. That has not happened, nor would it be considered by any person with integrity.
Given that a higher principle is at issue, I cannot simply accept improper limitations on preparing a defence. Discussing this important matter has been prevented. The right thing to do is to go ahead and prepare a defence. If blocked for preparing a defence, then that would be a form of gross injustice, but sometimes following the principle is more important. Travelmite (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Canvassing does not only apply to unaffected people. Your messages were only sent to selected people and the message was biased. I suggest you read WP:CANVASS (especially the note on "campaigning" more carefully. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- That assertion is incorrect. According to the page stats, six people contributed to 80% of a talk page discussion . My accuser selects one of them. I selected the other three, so that everyone was informed. Yes, sometimes they opposed me and that's irrelevant. The same applies to the other page , I choose the main contributor Roberthall7 (+30%). Recent interactions with RobertHall7 were explaining how my accuser is correct about an inadequate reference, which he disagrees. These are just the facts. Travelmite (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're not listening. Regardless of whether you think the other party is canvassing, you should not do it yourself. And your clearly biased message to them "User Pete/Skring has come off his block has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." instantly makes it canvassing anyway. If you had said something like "There is an issue at WP:ANI which you may wish to comment on", then that is an unbiased message. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Persistent block evasion
Hi. You recently blocked GaryFG8125 for making threats. He recently revealed on my talk page that he's a member of Fine Gael; this IP exhibits the same behaviour (as have several other IPs) and he now appears to be back again with a new account. Does this need to go through SPI or is a case of WP:DUCK? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)