User talk:Philomathes2357/Archive1

Welcome

Hello, Philomathes2357, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 12:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2020

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Spotlight without a reason justified by our policies and guidelines. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Philomathes2357! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Spotlight shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit at Hunter Biden laptop controversy was reverted

We have a whole article about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, with sources, showing why that specific allegation is false. Investigations about other allegations are a different topic, and the "falsely" is not about them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valjean. Unfortunately, I very strongly believe that you are wrong about this one. I am *very* familiar with this story and with the contents of the article you linked. I understand that you believe very fervently that these specific allegations have been "proven false". There are a couple of issues with that, however. First of all, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that these claims are false, the most you could do is call them "unsubstantiated", if you believe that the claims have absolutely zero evidentiary basis. Second of all, even if you feel that your reasons for believing in the falsehood of these allegations are very compelling, it is still merely your opinion. In a casual conversation with friends, saying "all of that Biden-Ukraine conspiracy stuff is false" would be understandable. But to value your opinion so much that you state it as fact in an encyclopedia is not appropriate. To merely state that these are "allegations" implies that they have not been thoroughly substantiated. To add the word "false" contributes nothing of substance, other than your opinion based on the evidence to which you've personally been exposed. Sorry, but unless you have a more fleshed-out argument for why this editorializing word "false" is essential to the substance of the article, I feel very strongly that its inclusion is inappropriate and a degradation of Wikipedia's founding principle of neutrality. Therefore, I've undone your reversion. If you have more thoughts on this subject, I'd invite you to comment here rather than escalate an edit war. Thank you. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You wrote in your edit summary: The question of whether or not Mr. Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine is still actively under investigation[1] Please direct us to this investigation, bearing in mind that conservative commentators don't count. soibangla (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I too would like to see what RS say about this investigation. (Not that we're ignorant, but to be sure which one is the subject here.) Otherwise, the "falsely" refers to a different topic that has been investigated and described by RS as a false accusation, so, according to the requirements of NPOV, we describe it that way too. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That wording is not my opinion. It is the long-standing consensus wording used at the conspiracy theory article, hence it is justified here and is the consensus wording here too. You would need to get a consensus to change that language, so if you want to make a fool of yourself, try to do it on the talk page. You're heading deep into tendentious, fringe advocacy, territory. Not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is very rude, unprofessional, and outright insulting. It is also disingenuous. I have not stated and am not stating a position about the truth or falsity of the claim under discussion - you are the one doing so. I'm simply stating that blatant opinion-based language should be replaced with neutral language within an encyclopedia. This would not have been controversial in the slightest on the Wikipedia of 5-10 years ago. If you must know, I think the claim is probably false, but it doesn't matter. So how am *I* somehow being a "fringe advocate"? Those who would change neutral language into opinion-based language that is designed to further one narrative and dismiss another narrative seem to be the ones engaging in advocacy. This opinion - that the allegation has been "proven false", is not only logically impossible, it is clearly the opinion that you hold personally. So why be sneaky about it and try to pretend that this is about the website's editorial policy, when it's clearly *your* personal editorial policy based on your political beliefs? I do not want this to become personal - although you seem eager to take it there, probably since you think I'm an evil Qanon conspiracy theorist who disagrees with you politically - so let's continue this conversation on the article's talk page, rather than my personal page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're such a person. Again, non-neutral language is specifically allowed by WP;NPOV. Go and look it up. Articles document non-neutral facts and opinions all the time, and that's the way it's supposed to be done. BTW, when RS describe something as "false", we are supposed to do the same. "False" is not an opinion, but sticking closely to the source.

Your accusation (that it's my opinion) is a personal attack and an exercise of bad faith. Stop it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some explaining will help. What Joe Biden did in Ukraine was to carry out the will of the international community, and he did it very publically. The prosecutor was not carrying out his corruption investigation of the owner of Burisma. He was corrupt and not doing his job. So Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire him and replace him with a prosecutor who would actually do the job. This actually put Hunter Biden in more jeopardy, that is if he had been doing anything corrupt at Burisma. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but the actions of his father were no favor to him, and Joe Biden's actions were not corrupt. The accusation against Joe Biden has been proven false. This is explained, with sources, at the conspiracy theory article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not need you to explain your opinion about international affairs. I have multiple degrees in the subject and work professionally in the field, and I'm *very* familiar with the facts of the story. Your explanation of events is not only incomplete, it is so obviously guided by your personal opinions that it is ludicrous and laughable. Again, the accusation has not been "proven false", because to do so is not possible. I've seen your conspiracy theory article, and it simply doesn't prove what you think it proves. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this? And where's that active investigation you mentioned?

In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."

soibangla (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate that after being invited to expound upon my argument and have a back-and-forth discussion on the article's "talk" page, you immediately blocked the thread, because, in your unbridled arrogance, you declared the matter "decided", with no back-and-forth, short of you insulting me and making logically impossible statements. Way to keep it classy. You, and people like you, are contributing to the degradation of Wikipedia *and* of American politics by inserting your sneaky linguistic tricks into political articles, which serve to manipulate the impressionable and alienate the thoughtful. And with that, I'm done with this topic. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then try to change the wording at the conspiracy theory article, since you obviously believe it's wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears from all the warnings and your edit warring, you're very close to a very long block. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not care. I am familiar with NPOV, as I have edited Wikipedia for a decade and a half. This type of non-neutral language would NEVER have been justified by the NPOV in previous eras. I do recognize that the problem is more fundamental - the RS themselves have become more biased and less objective in the past decade, as have the crafters of Wikipedia policy. However, to engage in this conversation further would be pointless, I'm afraid, as not only are you *obviously* guided by your political opinions, but it's highly likely that the crafters and other self-appointed enforcers of these policies are *also* guided by their political opinions. Regardless of the merits of any argument I present, or any policy that I quote or cite, I'm afraid that I will inevitably run into a brick wall when other liberal editors inject their biases and incorrectly perceive a pro-neutrality edit as a pro-Trump edit. Wikipedia has gone from being neutral and above the fray to being the other side of the coin of Conservapedia. How pathetic. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So you persist in assuming bad faith of other editors, based on your failure to understand policies. That's a WP:Battle and WP:Not here attitude, so a block may be necessary. I've been here since 2003 and helped to write the NPOV policy. We had fewer than 200,000 articles then. We have always allowed the accurate use of non-neutral wordings when backed by RS. That is not opinion-based editing. That is simply documenting what RS say. What's the alternative? To not say what RS say? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The bad faith of other editors is so overwhelmingly obvious, that "assuming" is not the right word. I would say "observing". The alternative to parroting biased RS is obvious: distill what they say into encyclopedic content that removes editorializing and non-factual opinions within RS. Otherwise, why read encyclopedias when you could just read the mainstream news source articles? Nowhere in Wikipedia's policy is it stated that editors are obligated to copy+paste every bit of substance and style within RS, even when the RS includes language that is not encyclopedic. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"distill what they say into encyclopedic content that removes editorializing and non-factual opinions within RS." ??? That's an explicit and clear description of how to perform WP:Original research and violate NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that, if a statement is made in an RS, even if that statement is *obviously* politically biased, we, as editors, are absolutely and non-negotiably obligated to include that politically biased language in the article? My understanding of original research is that it is material *added* to an article that is not supported by RS. Removing blatant political bias in order to make the factual information within the RS adhere to encyclopedic standards involves no research, so I don't see how it falls under that umbrella. If an RS writes, in an article that is not labeled as opinion, that the claim that Vladimir Putin oppresses his people is "false", would we then be obligated to edit Vladimir Putin's article to reflect this new RS decree? Or would we simply include any relevant factual information contained within that RS while ignoring the parts that are clearly non-encyclopedic? Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't always have to use the exact same words, but we should not alter the meaning, and when controversial, it's usually best to quote and attribute it. When something is so established and proven that it is described by the majority of RS as true or false, then we can begin to do the same in wikivoice without attribution.

Such an opinion about Putin would have to be attributed, and since it's so obviously against what most RS say, I suspect we wouldn't include it since it's likely from an unreliable source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. But if such a claim *were* made within an RS, we would not only have the option of including it, but we would be obligated to copy it to Wikipedia, as fact, without comment - even if we knew the statement was dubious - correct? Is there any mechanism for excluding false information that happens to slip through the cracks in RS? Or *must* we, according to Wikipedia policy, include anything and everything about politics that is claimed within an RS, even when those claims are dubious or logically impossible? Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent questions, but without absolute answers.

"...but we would be obligated to copy it to Wikipedia, as fact, without comment - even if we knew the statement was dubious - correct?" Never.

One must consider "how" we know the accuracy, truth, or falsity of information in sources. Our personal beliefs are rather useless, or even misleading, here. We know because RS shed light on the matter.

If one is a scientific skeptic like myself, one should fairly quickly update one's beliefs to harmonize with newer evidence. This mentality is quite unnatural and only comes from educated learning and skeptical thinking habits. In my case it comes from multiple medical educations and activities as an anti-quackery activist. One learns to vet sources, spot logical fallacies, and ferret out BS "evidence" and false claims. Then one debunks the crap and presents the facts. We do somewhat similar work here, all based on information from RS.

Following that same premise, our articles get updated and more accurate with time. We are required by policy to be "behind the curve" at all times. We only document what "has been" written or said in RS.

If false information is mentioned in some RS, they are usually citing information found in unreliable sources while providing us with the facts. In that case, we usually describe the false information as "false" (or some synonym) and describe the truth. We do not present a false balance and leave it up to readers to awkwardly try to figure out the truth. In that sense Wikipedia sides with RS against unreliable sources. That is policy. OTOH, when there is doubt, we present both sides and do not take sides.

We usually use several RS to show that the info is not the opinion or error of one RS. The possible combinations and confusing permutations make it impossible to give an exact procedure in every case, so we work with what many RS say. This often involves much discussion, lots of AGF, and patience. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Why read encyclopedias?

Why read encyclopedias? To learn the facts, including what is true and false. An encyclopedia that doesn't state those things plainly is not worth much. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"when the RS includes language that is not encyclopedic." RS are not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is not like other encyclopedias. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop editwarring

Your recent editing history at Hunter Biden laptop controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous accounts?

What previous accounts have you used?

You claim to have edited here for 15 years, yet this account has "32 edits since: 2020-05-15, last edit on 2022-05-12" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I see the editor hasn’t replied. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter and has no relevance to the merits of the edits I've made and discussions I've had through this account. I'm 26 now, and I was like 8-12 years old when I got into editing Wikipedia. My parents would give me "computer time" and instead of playing video games, I'd spend it on Wikipedia. I'm sure I could track an old account down by looking through the edit history of articles I created/edited, but what's the point? I also did some IP editing, because, well, I was 10 and didn't know any better. Valjean was clearly acting in bad faith when they were attacking me, which is why I ignored their irrelevant query. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Fred Hampton had his felony charge dropped, Duke did not

So I reverted you. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it was rude of you to flatly say "you're confused" in your edit summary. Are you sure I'm the one that's confused? I addressed this on the thread on Alanscottwalker's talk page. I think the bottom line is that "convicted felon" has such strong negative connotations that, even if true, it needn't be in an individual's opening sentence. I think that's a reasonable consensus to which we can all agree. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn’t have said that. Doug Weller talk 21:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that. I will say, I shouldn't have implied that you were acting in bad faith - you believed misinformation that had been expressed by a different user, which is a trap any of us can fall into. I apologize for allowing passion to cause me to question the motives of other editors. Obviously you're a respected, long-time editor, and I would normally defer to your judgement here. If you were constantly making bad-faith edits, you wouldn't be in the position you're in - I hope. But when I receive constant rude, snarky, and unprofessional comments about my edits, even when I think my edits are obviously made in good faith, and now, made in reflection of established consensus, I get frustrated, and am sometimes equally snarky in return. I've made an effort to channel this energy in a productive way by making threads on "biographies of living persons" and "requests for comment". However, when editors like Valjean overrule my edit, even when that flies in the face of clear, near-unanimous consensus on multiple threads, it starts to feel like I'm banging my head against a wall and consensus doesn't mean anything if a snarky admin disagrees with the consensus. Do you have any advice for how I can constructively proceed in light of Valjean's decision to ignore the consensus that I believe I've established? I really don't want to assume bad faith here, so I'm trying to understand. You never said that the consensus had to be established specifically on David Duke's talk page - you directed me to other channels, which I have followed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please show good faith and don’t accuse me of edit warring

Do you know about []WP:AgF]]? Two reverts is not an edit war and ironically the same number of reverts you made, or three if we count your first removal which technically was a revert. Edit summaries should normally stick to the reason for the edit and not mention editors. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I've been accused of starting edit wars so many times I've lost count. It's standard procedure whenever someone doesn't like my edit to be accused of edit-warring and threatened with a block or ban. Don't take it personally. But when you reverted my edit multiple times while justifying it by citing completely false information, it did annoy me, and it made me briefly question whether you were acting in good faith. Stating "you're confused", when, in fact, you were the one who was confused, was quite rude. And I felt that the hostile way Cullen approached me was totally inappropriate, since I'm obviously working in good faith here. With that said, I hear you, and I will try to keep the snark to a minimum, I'm sure you'd agree that it's easy to lose sight of the fact that there's a fellow human on the other side of the computer screen, and perhaps all of us are less judicious with our words than we would be if we were sitting in a room together. Thanks for reaching out with your concerns. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, since you're upset that I accused you of edit-warring, and felt the need to talk to me about it personally, will you also be talking to Valjean for his disruptive edit, and for accusing me of edit-warring in the edit summary - the same behavior you just said is not in accordance with the standard for edit summaries? Also, I pursued the proper channels as you suggested to establish consensus on this issue. The discussion that was had, as well as the discussion from April 2020 that I linked, clearly show an overwhelming consensus that "convicted felon" is inappropriate for an opening sentence. So, will Valjean be given a warning for his edit-warring and disruptive behavior, as I have been given by you and Cullen?

What recourse do I have when I establish overwhelming consensus for my position, but people like Valjean *still* engage in edit-warring with me? I have a feeling that if I revert Valjean's edit, I'll be spammed with warnings/threats about my disruptive behavior...even though I went through the proper channels upon your recommendation and found overwhelming consensus for my position. I have a feeling that Valjean will not receive such a reprimand, however... Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Forgot

Also see WP:BRD. And your comments to Cullen also failed to show good faith. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't read BRD. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:POINT / WP:BATTLEGROUND

Following up on this remark: [2]. "Agreeing" that such conduct is "not ideal" is not the same thing as recognizing that you've violated a guideline. But I'm glad to hear that you will not be repeating this behavior –– in the active voice this time. You do seem to be taking a belligerent tone with Cullen328, all the while accusing him of doing the thing you are much more obviously doing. That kind of rhetorical tactic isn't fooling anybody. You might wish to rein it in. Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this discussion to my talk page, I think this is a more appropriate forum so that we don't derail the substantive discussion. Here is a copy-paste of the comment I made before I saw your comment here:

Hi Generalrelative, you're missing context in which I felt that Cullen made some unprofessional comments to me on another thread. That's the source of my frustration, and since you're jumping in at the end of a lengthy back-and-forth that spans multiple threads, I think it'd be best if you, Cullen, and I all drop it. I'm sure Cullen's a fine and sincere individual at heart, and if we spoke face-to-face for 5 minutes, the hostility and belligerence you perceive would be neutralized. We just failed to communicate effectively, and since Cullen, by his own admission, isn't really interested in the substantive issue at hand (not a criticism), I don't think further discussion of the matter is warranted. If Cullen feels that the issue should be addressed further, I've already invited him to discuss it with me on my talk page.

I don't want to get into the weeds about the Hampton edits, but I'll briefly summarize: as I recall, I edited the Hampton article twice. The first time was completely in good faith, because I saw the phrase "convicted felon" in many other biographical articles, and although I wasn't positive, it seemed reasonable to include the phrase on Hampton's page as well, because he was a convicted felon. The second time, when I re-reverted the page, was because when the phrase "convicted felon" was removed, the cited reason for doing so was that Hampton's felony charges were dropped - which is false, the charges were never dropped, pardoned, or expunged. So, since the cited reason for removing the phrase was objectively incorrect, I figured that it was invalid and that it would be reasonable to re-institute my edit. I later came to the realization that, whether it violated a guideline or not, this was not the right way to go about things, because I was actually making the Hampton article worse, by my own standards. So I've found more constructive ways forward, like posting at "biographies of living persons", creating a RFC on David Duke's talk page, and starting a comprehensive list of biographies with similar loaded language. Hope this clears things up. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'll be straight with you. Don't call Cullen a "troll." He is not a troll and hasn't acted like one, nor has he acted "unprofessionally" or any of the other things you've said about him. You're displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and it is obvious to anyone with even the remotest experience here. Folks who behave as you are doing get topic banned or blocked sooner than later, unless they are able to straighten themselves out quickly. Word to the wise. Generalrelative (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks buddy, but not-so-subtly implying that my edits are motivated by racism is unprofessional, to say the least. Cullen is a grown man, as am I. If he feels that the conversation between us needs to continue, he will continue the conversation. He doesn't need your help. I think we're done here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you may have called me "buddy" too and I cannot speak for Generalrelative, but I consider that terminology dismissive and condescending. I am not your buddy. I am on the very brink of blocking you but I will give you one last chance to back away from your disruptive axe grinding. So, please back off and adopt a much more collaborative attitude, or you will be placed in the position of convincing another administrator to unblock you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The way you speak to Cullen328 and Doug Weller on Talk:David Duke is quite unacceptable. Please note that civility is Wikipedia policy. It's uncivil to complain of "personal attacks and threats" when there have been none. Your notion that admin warnings amount to "me no like that!" (as you have said repeatedly) is ridiculous and offensive. And don't call people "buddy" (at Talk:David Duke as well as above) unless they're actually a buddy of yours; it comes off as very aggressive. (I think you knew that.) As for removing "convicted felon" from David Duke while adding it at Fred Hampton, that is a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please follow that link and read the guideline. I know you have already been referred to it — but did you read it that time? That seems doubtful, as you waved it away a mere 12 minutes later. You seem to value yourself on admitting you shouldn't have added it a second time to Fred Hampton, but actually you shouldn't have added it there at all. (Obviously, following it up with edit warring made the pointiness worse, yes.) I will sanction you myself if you continue with such conduct. Bishonen | tålk 11:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

Thanks for your input. The way Cullen spoke to me was also unacceptable, and given that he's a grownup, I don't think he needs you to jump in out of nowhere to defend him. I told him that if he wants to clarify his remarks (which included a very obvious and disgusting implication that I'm a racist, even though I am Black and Cullen is white) he can come to my talk page. The way I talked to Doug was not nice, and I went to his talk page and apologized to him. I won't be addressing the edits any more as I've already discussed where I think I went wrong and committed to letting the RFC play out. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not defending Cullen, I'm warning you. In my capacity as an administrator, which does not on this site qualify as 'jumping in'. And 'out of nowhere' is precisely the best place for an admin to come from; the less involved with your conflicts and arguments, the better. That's how it works. Bishonen | tålk 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC).

That's fair. I think we can both agree that implying that editors with whom you disagree are racist is not appropriate, and accusations of bad faith and edit-warring were also not appropriate. Cullen decided to back off from his accusation, and I personally apologized to Doug for assuming bad faith on his part, and stated publicly - and will state again here, for the record - I don't intend on editing the David Duke page again or engaging in any behavior that could be reasonably construed as edit-warring. Someone who's not central to the debate can implement the consensus once the RFC has been concluded. I think we're all finally on the same page here, Bishonen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I never once stated, implied or thought to myself that you are racist, but rather that your editing has been disruptive and tendentious. I did not "back off" from anything. I stand by everything I have said about your recent behavior, and hope that you will correct it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've committed to behaving in a civil way going forward. The fact that you went out of your way multiple times to mention that Duke is a "white racist" and Hampton is "black", even though these facts are both obvious and 100% irrelevant, raised alarm bells. Perhaps that's not what you meant to imply? Can you please clarify? I'd like to apologize for assuming you were acting in bad faith. I think this was all an example of internet communication gone horribly wrong. If you and I were to talk face-to-face for 5 minutes, we'd probably have no issue whatsoever with one another. Let me conclude with this - I'll try my best to be kinder, more civil, and AGF in the future, and keep in mind that there's other humans with feelings on the other side of the screen. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I was stating the facts for context. This is a worldwide project that includes people of all ages, many of whom are unfamiliar with Hampton and Duke. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The battlefield attitude is still a problem. Above there are some threads where we disagreed and threads where other editors warned you. When I wrote "It appears from all the warnings and your edit warring, you're very close to a very long block." (23:31, 11 May 2022), you responded, "I do not care." That appears to still be your attitude. You are carrying a grudge against me, and your attacks on me on several pages for my ONE revert are atrocious. Your attack on my talk page is also bad. (Naturally, your attempt to get me sanctioned for that one revert was rebuffed.)

I happen to agree with the others. The longstanding status quo version should remain until the matter is settled at Talk:David Duke. Edit warring is not the way forward and your refusal to self-revert is a blotch on your reputation here. (Now that it has been fixed by another editor, you have lost your chance to remove that blotch.) That refusal establishes that you do not respect the civil and proper way to deal with these issues. Edit warring is never right, even when you may be right about every single issue involved. You have chosen the low road by refusing to self-revert and by attacking other editors. That's sad.

You should have been blocked for edit warring and making personal attacks, casting aspersions, and assuming bad faith. In fact, Bishonen would still be justified in blocking you to prevent any further disruption by you. A topic ban would be even better since this is a long-standing pattern that needs a long-term solution. A block does not do that. The many warnings from many editors and sections above (which did not affect your behavior) demonstrate that attitude problem, and that you "don't care.") The wiki needs to be protected from you. We know what you believe, so please stop posting walls of text. There are articles with fewer words than many of your comments. Just let process and other editors make the final decisions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, it needs to be said that from our very first interactions on Wikipedia, I felt that you, to use your words "made personal attacks, cast aspersions, and assumed bad faith", and immediately started making threats to ban/block me from the get-go, without ever assuming good faith. That doesn't make it right when I did the very same thing, but it's definitely the root of my frustration and hostility, so let's not pretend that I was just acting out for no reason. The fact that my conduct needs to be cleaned up has been made clear, and I've made clear that I've heard these concerns loud and clear and will be handling things differently in the future. I won't be editing the two articles in question any more. I will sit back, keep my hands to myself instead of on the keyboard, ignore comments that I find rude and frustrating rather than responding in kind, and let the RFC process play out. I have a long list of other issues I've identified on Wikipedia, and after this RFC has concluded, I'll turn my focus to those issues, keeping in mind the reminders to be civil and AGF. Hopefully, we can even find common ground and work together on some of those issues in the future. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that you're due for another one of these

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Generalrelative (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! However, Fred Hampton died long before 1992, so I don't think this is the best banner to post here. But the sky-blue color of the background is pretty. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure that refers to David Duke/ Doug Weller talk 08:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian is an rs

The bit about opinion pieces applies more or less to every media source. That a few editors don't like it's politics is not a surprise given the number of conservative and right wing editors we have and doesn't make it unreliable. Compare with what RSNP says about Fox News. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I'm a little confused, what's the context of this? I must've missed something. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I can’t recall where you mentioned the Guardian, should have linked it. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RE: Duke

Just wanted to caution you against WP:BLUDGEON. You've opened a RfC and stated your opinion. You don't need to reply to every comment you disagree with on the topic. Just let the process play out. A typical RfC will last around a month so plenty of editors will review it. If the article is dominated by your comments it tends to confuse and discouraged editors who can participate. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Philo, you should consider setting up an email address with your Wiki account. I appreciate your concerns related to encyclopedic tone. I see several editors have suggested you might be too blunt when calling spades as you see them. It's natural to want to do that but please be careful. Yes, some of the editors are probably here to POV push etc but many, including some I see above are here in good faith and just want to make sure people follow the rules (which are about a clear as Emily Post's rules of etiquette. Springee (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your advice. I agree I can be very blunt, especially when I detect POV pushing and similar BS (of which there is plenty, including among admins), but I definitely have gone too far at times. Just curious, what would be the benefit of setting up an email address with my Wiki account? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no private messaging system like many web forums. Email acts as an alternative. Many editors have a Wikipedia specific email rather than using their regular use email account. Springee (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahh. Good point. I added an email address to my main page. If you were wanting to reach out to me, it's susokukan@protonmail.com. Thanks for the tip. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We strongly advise editors not to make their email addresses public, If you wish, I can hide it so not even other Admins can see it. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, but that's not an important account I really don't mind it being out in public view along with everything that might imply for me. I don't use it for anything personal/sensitive Philomathes2357 (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't post it publicly, add it to your account profile. When you go to my page or Doug's page on the left near where is says user contributions it will say email this user. Springee (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

What would be the negative ramifications of posting it publicly? I suppose if I really piss off a POV pusher or something like that, they could try to doxx me? Beyond that, am I overlooking something? It's a protonmail account used primarily through Tor, only for spam/junk mail and Wikipedia. If I'm incurring a significant security liability by doing this, I'm ignorant of it. Can someone possibly enlighten me? Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use the normal method here? That way you at least know which editor is contacting you. Your idea leaves you open to the whole world. It gives anyone a way to get to your computer and/or phone, so they are only one step away from possibly gaining access. You provide your Social Security number to official agencies, but you would never leave it laying around for anyone to know. The same with your email address. These are things that are in the "need to know" realm. There is literally no good reason not to follow the advice you're getting. We care about your welfare, but if you insist on not wearing a condom, figuratively speaking, that's on you. It's a risky way to live. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't arguing with you Valjean. I did go through the channel provided by Wikipedia and registered my email address. I've just got to figure out how to add it to my main page like Doug has it on his. I was just curious if there's a specific potential vulnerability in posting an email address here as opposed to, say, the website where I run my business, or an internet message board. I know that Wikipedia identifies editors by their IP address. Could that be an issue? I've been on the internet for 20 years with no security problems, and I've never treated an anonymous, Tor-based throwaway email account like my SSN. That's why I was asking, not to question the validity of your well-meaning advice, but to see if there's a gap in my understanding of Wikipedia's specific vulnerabilities. If posting an email on Wikipedia's like posting it on any other website, I really, truly don't care about my throwaway email being out there, but if there's something specific to Wikipedia that makes its users more vulnerable, I'd consider taking Doug up on his offer to hide the post with my email address on it. That's all. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

To follow on Valjean's advise consider this case. Email via the Wiki system has an advantage in that the system will tell you who it came from both via a message inside of wikipedia and in the message from wikipedia. When you send an email via the Wiki system the recipient both knows the editor's user name as well as the sending address. However, Wikipedia protects the recipient's address. It also can't be scanned by bots. Springee (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Howdy

Howdy. I know you think I'm just some liberal wiki editor guy but I promise I'm trying to help you. You really can't let that kind of BLP violating stuff hang around anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a serious violation of BLP. Furthermore you really can't just start comparing a guy like Santos, who literally claimed his family fled the Holocaust, to some Biden small potatoes stuff from years ago - that's offensive and some might consider it borderline trolling, it also lacks reliable sources. So, I'm legitimately offering you this to be helpful: WP:RGW Andre🚐 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that about you, for the record. I read BLP and see that it does apply to talk pages...although I don't like the idea of people fooling with my talk page archive, I understand that defamatory claims hosted on Wikipedia could open the platform up to legal liability, so I get it. As for Santos/Biden...we can get into the weeds about what makes or does not make Santos "worse" - that would be an interesting philosophical discussion. But I think it's immaterial. I also don't think RGW applies here, although I appreciate you linking it and enjoyed reading it. Biden's record of dishonesty has, in fact, been covered by RS - the decision to de-emphasize it is an editorial decision that's been made on Wikipedia, and that editorial decision, in conjunction with editorial decisions made on the George Santos page and elsewhere, seem to be to be a possible violation of NPOV. The real question here is not "Biden's lies v. Santos' lies" - it's a higher level question of how the lies of politicians should be handled in an encyclopedic context, so that we don't have an environment where some politicians' pages make only tepid, vague allusions to "embellishment" and "folklore" a dozen paragraphs into the body, while other articles say "Politician X has made numerous dubious or false claims" in the lead. I'm not sure what the best way to handle this issue is (that's why I'm talking about it publicly, to clarify it for myself as well as others), but I do think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. Hopefully that clarifies my position somewhat, thanks for reaching out in good faith. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Howdy

Just saying "Hi" here... Skyerise (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to hear you feel that you've been having issues with our fellow editor. Hopefully they find something else to do and stop their disruptive, rude, and violative behavior. I watchlisted the pages you suggested, not only because of your request, but because I'm actually quite interested in those topics. Thanks for reaching out, maybe we will collaborate in the future. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Red-tailed hawk, I'm not too familiar with what these messages are supposed to signify. I know, or at least think, that it's nothing negative, but I'm unclear as to their purpose. Could you please clarify? Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you've been active on Talk:The Grayzone. Because the page concerns the two topics listed above, I just wanted to make you aware of these contentious topics and how they are handled on Wikipedia. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I don't currently have any interest in editing articles about those topics, but this is good to know. I appreciate it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Separately, as a note regarding the recent RfC, I want to point you to our guidance regarding bludgeoning the process during formal discussions. In particular, please keep in mind that [i]n formal discussions, less is usually more, and that comments in response to other editors should try to be narrow responses to specific points raised. In general, in formal discussions (such as an RfC), editors should avoid unduly repeating the same points and should focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. Feel free to take a look at WP:BLUDGEON for more comprehensive guidance. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I wrote a reply to your RFC post before reading this one, but I hope you'll agree that my response is a narrow response to the specific points you raised. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:The Grayzone. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I've just read this now. Philomathes2357 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you! Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Left vs right in politics and history

Context: Talk:The_Grayzone#RfC_about_the_use_of_"far-left"_in_Wikivoice_in_the_opening_sentence

Wow! Not only TLDR (although I did read most of it), but also shows a lack of understanding of how the political spectrum works.

It's about differing ideas and ideals that exist on both sides of center regardless of whether anyone in a certain society believes in them. They are still there, and they don't move because people change beliefs. A society can be nearly exclusively right wing or left wing without the ideas on the other side disappearing.

Also, the historical French origins are still inherently tied to the current sides. Left is still left and right is still right. They still share the same beliefs. That has not changed and applies in modern Scandinavia and America, with Social Democracy, high educational levels, very large middle class, few poor and fewer super wealthy, low crime rates, and mixed market capitalism strong in the former, whereas vulture capitalism, class society, much poverty, high crime rates, and illiteracy are prevalent in America.

America's Founding Fathers were left-wing revolutionaries like their friends and allies in France. They did not dictate that capitalism should be the ruling economic system. It has just assumed/captured that role.

Left-wingers still tend to support democracy and full, equal, civil and human rights for everyone (for the poor and peasantry in France back then). They support labor unions because they side with employees against employers. They oppose a privileged class, royal titles, plutocracy, monarchy, and dictators. They believe in one vote per person, regardless of their wealth or other powers in society.

Right-wingers still tend to side with the powerful and wealthy (like the king in France back then), and protect them by lowering their taxes. They are against labor unions. They think huge class differences are just fine.

In America one sees a sharing of certain values by both sides (like voting), but less so now than in FDR's and Eisenhower's eras. Since Reagan we've slid further apart and are approaching the old French extreme divide more than before. The current GOP is even abandoning democracy.

"Far" exists on both sides. The far-left (Communists) and the far-right (Nazis) are extremists despised by the moderates on the left and right. Democrats don't like Communists, and Republicans don't like Nazis.

Enough for now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of ideas here to unpack. I would enjoy doing so. But before I do, I should double-check, are you here because you're genuinely interested in discussing the issue in depth, or was this intended as a one-way remark to emphasize how wrong you think I am? Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Absurdly long talk page posts

Just a note that I a !vote of the length you made at Talk:The Grayzone is likely to turn people off. Personally, I saw it and its length, did not read it, and almost answered in opposition to your position simply out of annoyance of the length of the thing. I then remembered that this type of characterization in opening sentences is something I disagree with generally, and left a short !vote to that effect. I still haven't read it, and I won't. I did read some shorter responses. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Reply

Three things:

First of all, this is a rotating IP, I have been editing wikipedia for years, so your patronizing tone is not appreciated.

Second, no, you may not re-do your edit, as that violates Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You're the one who wants to make a bold claim that Bundy isn't an antigovernment activist, I disagree, so take it to the talk page or drop the matter, you are not allowed to simply impose your will.

Third, I have little else to say to you, as you are an obvious POV-pusher. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:98A3:4835:2C5F:272C (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Doug Weller here's another probable sock. Popped into existence with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy, seems primarily or exclusively interested in wiki-stalking me, and was editing the same pages as Vizorblaze and using the same words. WilliamAdamall, who was already banned, was another. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note - Vizorblaze's IP has been connected to Raxythecat on the ANI. There is another user here, who's name I will not say for now, who's been obsessively following me around, who also was doing a lot of editing on the same pages Raxythecat was accused of edit-warring. I'm just noting this for the record. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Referred this to the Checkuser who already has the details, obviously the best person to handle this. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if my indef ban doesn't get reviewed, I'd still like to see shady, bad-faith characters taken off the platform. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Forumshopping

Hi. You opened an RfC at Talk:The Grayzone about the use of "far-right" and "far-left" in the article, and when that quickly went against you, you did not drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, but went instead to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch on the same errand, without telling people there that there was already a discussion initiated by you at The Grayzone. (Or, indeed, telling the people at Talk:The Grayzone that you had opened another discussion.) Please drop the stick now. Move on to something else and have a read of WP:FORUMSHOP, which is part of the consensus policy. I will not object to your use of a third forum, your own talkpage, since it doesn't pose such a drain on other editors' time and energy. But it really is time to accept that consensus is against your "far-right"/"far-left"proposal. Constructive editors' time and patience is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and you have been squandering that resource.

I understand that you think your many opponents are grievously wrong and you alone are right. That's obvious from the way you have been consistently devaluing other people's views and arguments: when they disagree with you, it's in your opinion "simply because it feels good to apply disparaging labels to subjects that editors personally find distasteful", and when you disregard the outcome of the RfC, well, that's simply because "There is, sadly, painfully little wisdom reflected in the comments at the RFC".1 And so on. You need to show some respect, even if you feel none. Wrapping sneers in formal language (such as "Thanks for engaging here in good faith, but I haven't seen any indication that you have something productive or original to add to the discussion, so I support your decision to refrain from further comments") does not conceal their nature. Bishonen | tålk 22:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC).

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring after being warned by several editors

Your interpretation of BLP is off. This is not sensitive personal stuff. The community has determined this is good content, so stop edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-read BLP and try again. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2023‎ (UTC)

I helped create the BLP policy. When several editors reject your efforts, stop edit warring and only discuss on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cliven Bundy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also stop deleting your threads. This talk page does not belong to you. It is to be used for necessary communication from other editors, so keep the channel open and easy to use. Your constant deletions, while technically allowed in some cases, comes across as obstructionism and a lack of collaborativeness. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Politics

I think you may want to find something else to edit about for a while; you are getting into it with an awful lot of people, about an awful lot of subjects. While it's true that a few the other editors are behaving quite badly, you haven't exactly been collegial either, and I don't think getting them all angry at you at the same time is going to end well. jp×g 11:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely for edit warring (compare this ANEW thread), bludgeoning on talkpages, disrespect for consensus (compare my warning above), an unwillingness/inability to ever drop the stick, and an egregious waste of constructive editors' time and patience (which, as I pointed out above, is Wikipedia's most precious resource). You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC).

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).

Philomathes2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think a total and indefinite block is completely unreasonable here, and I'm asking an uninvolved administrator to consider what I have to say. The Admin noticeboard was a dogpile of people who've been following me around for weeks to every page I go, explicitly accusing me, over and over, of being a bad faith actor, with no evidence. I was not even given the chance to respond to legitimate, constructive criticism of me by the only uninvolved individual to comment, @SnowRise. At the very least, I should be unblocked and allowed to engage with sober, thoughtful critiques of my interpretation of how BLP and consensus policies interact with and contradict one another.

My reverts of the Cliven Bundy page were good-faith and based on my word-for-word interpretation of BLP's mandate to remove violative content "without further discussion". I was also guided in my interpretation by @Herostratus advisement on how to apply this policy, which can be found at the "RFC on convicted felon" at David Duke's talk page. Wikipedia policy makes very clear that BLP-violative policy must go, immediately, without further discussion and without being subject to consensus or standard edit-warring guidelines. If content is BLP-violative, but there's a consensus that the content should remain, as-is, tough luck: the consensus is simply incorrect, and the editor removing the violative content is simply correct. If someone re-inserts violative content, they are edit-warring. If someone removes the violative content, they are upholding their obligation to BLP. Based on my reading of BLP and the explication of it I've read from admins, I really thought it was that straightforward.

Full disclosure, I have autism, and tend to take things very literally. However, nobody at any point pulled me aside and said "hey Philo, I know you're making a case that these reverts are pursuant to BLP and therefore justified, but I think there are relevant subtleties that you're missing here: here's why". If someone had tried to educate me, rather than making blatantly false statements about what BLP says ("the content has been on the page for a while, so it's not a BLP violation" or "calling a controversial political figure "antigovernment" without a source is the same as calling the sky blue, so it doesn't need a source") and exposing their POV by freaking out and calling me a "nazi whitewasher" when I pointed out that those statements made no sense, I would have responded in a much more collegial and conciliatory manner.

I can certainly understand that re-reversions, even if they are explicitly protected by the letter and spirit of BLP, can be seen as disruptive (disruptive to what or to whom is unclear), so it would have been reasonable for me to let the violative content stand until the BLP noticeboard discussion I created had concluded. That's a reasonable critique, but one which I wasn't afforded an opportunity to acknowledge or engage with.

I'm sure a reasonable uninvolved person could see that being called a "nazi", a "troll", an "am radio listener", and a "whitewasher" put me in defensive mode, since I was being attacked in bad faith, and caused me at a certain point to say "screw this, until someone at least tries to make a cogent good-faith argument for why this isn't BLP violative (and the onus to do so is on those who wish to maintain the content), I'm going to keep removing it until a formal discussion has taken place". I was literally begging the other editors to engage on the talk page or add a source for the unsourced content, while they were just responding "Nazi!" "whitewasher!". Maybe not the best approach, but an approach that merits a permanent total ban, without even being able to respond to criticisms? No way. I'm sure anyone reading this would be pissed off and may lose their cool if they were accused of being a "nazi troll whitewasher" for making a straightforward edit pursuant to specifically cited policy.

I notice that the editor who called me these things was not only not banned - he hasn't even been called out for his behavior on his talk page. Amazing, but sadly predictable. I'd also note that nobody even tried to address my straightforward argument that the content was BLP-violative. When I say "hey, I think this content is BLP violative based on the exact text of BLP", and the response is, basically "don't know, don't care, shut the f*ck up and go away, Nazi whitewasher"...you can see how I might interpret that as bad-faith actors shouting me down, rather than "community consensus", and proceed accordingly. It's frustrating that, every time I might go off the rails in good faith, even slightly, a torrent of people harshly criticize me personally, but when I am on the receiving end of really abhorrent and sanctionable behavior, it has never once been acknowledged.

As for "wasting other editors' time and patience, I reject that. No editor has any obligation to respond to anything I say, people engage with what I say because they find it worthy of their engagement. I write detailed posts because I have detailed thoughts about the subject. If other people do not have detailed thoughts on the subject, they're free to ignore me and edit other articles that align with their interests. I see extremely detailed RFC and talk page posts frequently: if I'm not educated enough in the subject to engage with a post of that level of detail and nuance, I just ignore it and move on, even if I have a knee-jerk, gut-feeling opinion about the subject. An indefinite, total ban is something I thought was reserved for trolls and vandals, not a sincere person with autism who has trouble communicating sometimes but wakes up every day earnestly wanting to improve Wikipedia in ways that I think need to be addressed urgently.

So, now, the BLP-violative content has been maintained, it's still unsourced, atrociously written, and still violative, the guy persistently re-inserting it while calling me a "nazi" hasn't even been verbally reprimanded, and I'm permanently banned. How is that an ideal outcome? This is an unreasonable decision and I hereby request that it be reconsidered by an administrator that has never previously threatened me or accused me of bad faith. At least unban me long enough to engage with the sober and thoughtful posts made by uninvolved editors on the noticeboard page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedurally declined per WP:TLDR. Please keep your request to a short paragraph or two. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

Philomathes2357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

OK, will do. I request an unblock because:
1) I have a clean block record and have never been sanctioned in any way
2) I'm a good-faith editor who believes at a deep, emotional level in the Wikipedia project
3) I've been borderline harassed by a determined group of editors accusing me of bad faith and a being a "nazi" while trying to share my social media accounts on public threads, which, while not an excuse, is an explanation for why I have occasionally adopted a defensive posture
4) I care, a LOT, about Wikipedia, and think there are a lot of ways I can contribute in a valuable and productive way
5) The proximate cause of my indefinite block was an edit-war, but I was removing BLP-violative content which was re-inserted by someone who called me a "nazi", and multiple other editors have acknowledged I made a reasonable case that the content was indeed violative
6) I have always tried to respect consensus by creating RFCs or noticeboard posts, including in this case
7) I'm autistic, and I know that I have a hard time getting along with others, but I've been sincerely trying my best to improve and have steadily improved throughout my time on Wikipedia
8) Even though removing BLP-violative content is not subject to the three-revert rule, I will swear to never exceed the three-revert rule, even if I'm removing unsourced violative content.
9) I'm willing to have a serious, back-and-forth conversation with an administrator about bludgeoning and how I can do better at avoiding it in the future.
10) I recognize that I sometimes write very long posts in talk pages, I see how that could be bothersome, and I also now recognize that writing User Essays or writing on my personal user page would be better outlets for Wikipedia-related thoughts that exceed a paragraph or two. That way, people can read them if they want, without them taking up lots of space on public talk pages. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Admins have to balance a desire to help an editor (your points 1, 2 and 4) against the necessity of avoiding future time sinks for others (most of your other points). No one gets indefinitely blocked solely for an edit war—it is quite easy to find the actual reasons on this talk page and your unblock request does not address them. Regarding your point 5, you seem to be aware that removing BLP violations is an edit-warring exemption (WP:3RRBLP) yet you were reverted by multiple users without support that I can see, and you were blocked. Are you still claiming the material you removed was a BLP violation? The BLPN report also does not appear to support for your position. If I have missed something, please explain. Points 9 and 10 are welcome but should be unnecessary—either an editor is able to know when they should move on and argue about something else, or they are not. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Before you try again

Philo, I think you need to do a few things before requesting a new unblock. I think you could address things with 3 relatively straight forward promises to last at 6 months. 1. Propose that as a condition of your unblock you will agree to a 1RR limit. The intent is to prevent future appearances of edit warring. 2. You will limit your talk page replies to either replies to your comments or original comments. The intent is to prevent talk page bludgeoning. 3. You will not comment on other editors on article talk pages. I don't think this was a serious part of your block but it didn't help as it makes it look like you are engaging in battle ground behavior.

I think this list works better than your request above because they are relatively clear and enforceable changes. If you follow them you should be well on the good side of the line. The are also rules that, if internalized, will make you a more effective editor. Do note that the any revert counts towards the 1 RR limit. Consider the following. I change long term stable paragraph 1. You disagree and revert me. Next I change paragraph 18. You again disagree and revert me. Those are two difference changes but they still both count as reverts. Thus you are at 2 reverts. However, if I change paragraph 1, some other editors make changes, then I change paragraph 18. You then revert both of my changes either as 1 edit or as 2 back to back edits. That would be just 1 revert as sequential edits are treated as if they were a single large edit. Anyway, if you agree to a 1RR limit please make sure you understand what counts as a revert. Springee (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, man. I appreciate all the advice you've given me in this situation, but frankly, I feel like no matter what I do, I'll be unwelcome here.

If I were unblocked, frankly, there'd not even be a need for self-imposed "rules" like the ones you and I have discussed - the issue would cease to exist, because I won't stir the pot. I'd just go work on some articles about Thai Buddhism and obscure U.N. Agreements (both of which I was working on before the indef). I'll sit back and figure out how Wikipedia actually works, in all its subtleties, before I ever made another comment about how it "should" work. And I'd keep my talk page messages terse and my reverts rare. And I wouldn't ever talk about other editors unless I was reporting seriously problematic behavior through the proper channels.

If I haven't yet convinced anyone that I'm here in good faith and that a little "rope" would go a long way, then I don't think I'll ever be able to persuasively make that case. I don't see a reason to continue begging. Wouldn't a 3rd unblock request just be more "bludgeoning"? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I get what you are saying. Consider this, one way to asswage others would be to formalize what you have just said, you are going to avoid AP2 (US politics post 1992) topics. A voluntary AP2 tban. After that I would hope that people would be less concerned. I think your two unblock requests have failed not because it's a lost cause. Instead because neither really helps the admins say, OK I think this person gets the issue or I think the proposed solution addresses the issue. As an example, assume I was blocked based on my interactions/editing etc related to [the Troubles]]. So I might be unblocked with a statement to the effect of, "here are the things I did wrong, why they were wrong and I promise not to do them again". Showing I clearly understood what I did wrong and stating I won't do it again may be enough. However, if I reply, "well I guess I didn't do it right but those people were also jerks and in the future I will just ignore the butt heads who try to POV push for the Irish/English." Well, I might never get in trouble again by ignoring the butt heads and jerks, but I'm also not likely to convince the admins that I really understand what I did wrong.

However, if I really do feel those people are POV pushing etc, and I really do mean to stay way from the topic area then suggesting a self imposed tban might be sufficient. So long as my issues really are just related to articles related to the Troubles then a request that simply says, I will stay away from this topic area (and not edit war) is probably just fine (assuming I don't have a history of trouble in other areas). After some time when I show that I'm doing good work in other topic areas (and perhaps can point to disagreements that were well handled) then I can request a review of my tban. I my view your requests needed, yet were missing, either the clear statement that you understand what the issue was and you won't do it again or a clear statement that you will stay away from the topic area. I think if you do either of those you will have better luck. Springee (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d be okay with a “plea bargain” style unblock where you accepted a topic ban from politics (all of it) and BLP. I’m sure you are here in good faith but your profound violations of WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION in those areas mean I’m unwilling to trust a simple assertion that you wouldn’t do it again, Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have quite a lot of experience being in a minority here on Wikipedia. It's allowed. When someone tried to get me sanctioned, it blew up in their face. The key is to know when not to continue pushing. There are a lot of times it's just hopeless to win a certain point. When that happens, one should briefly make one's opinion known, then move on to something else. Starting an RfC is fine, but one has to be willing to lose it. I once lost an RfC by double-digits-to-one. I just didn't make a big deal out of it, and I was fine. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that. Also, editors do respect when you acknowledge consensus is against you. [3] Springee (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were to submit yet a third unblock request, I want to keep it very short. In your opinion, should I focus on simply acknowledging where I went wrong, or should I dedicate more space to making specific proposals, such as a voluntary 1RR restriction and a voluntary topic ban on post 1992 American politics, that could be appealed after 6 months of otherwise exemplary behavior?

Perhaps I could voluntarily commit to a self-study course in Wikipedia policy, according to a syllabus/reading list, proposed by me and approved by an administrator? Do you think that would be worth proposing in an unblock request? It would certainly address what I see to be the core concern here, which is a lack of competence in matters of policy and conduct. I want to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Short is good. Committing to something vague or illdefined like a self-study course is good but if I were an admin it's little better than saying "I'm going to study the rules so I can do a better job of walking right up to the edge." Also, most people who have the authority aren't going interested in committing the time to teach you. It's easier to say no and not worry about it. I would stick with specific focused proposals. In 1-2 sentences max try to summarize what you think went wrong. Then I would suggest offering a self imposed 1RR and a 1 reply limit on talk page discussions (ie for each topic you will leave no more than 1 reply unless someone is replying to you first). This would be for 1 year, appealable after 6 month. I think that should be sufficient but you could say if it would make the responding admin feel better, include an AP2 tban during this time. Working in non-AP2 areas would probably be the best way to get some more experience and show a good editing record. The other two are really just good practice. So you have 2 sentences to say what you did wrong, and then 2-3 to say here is why admins shouldn't worry about this happening again. Springee (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes, write a third unblock request if you like, of course. But you can also save yourself the bother, as I'm considering proposing a conditional unblock for your consideration, based on things I've read above, and on discussion with a few other admins. Watch this space. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

Unblock conditions

I'm willing to lift your block on the following conditions, which would be active for 6 months:

1. The problems with your editing have nearly all appeared in political editing — not in the "articles about Thai Buddhism and obscure U.N. Agreements" that you mention. Therefore, I would impose a topic ban from post-1992 politics, broadly construed. (The year is taken from the standard Arbcom contentious topic ban from post-1992 American politics, but this would also ban you from the politics of other countries.) Examples from your recent editing that would be included in this ban are Cliven Bundy, Delcy Rodríguez, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Prima Linea, Al-Qaeda, The Grayzone, Joe Biden, George Santos, and David Duke, as well as their talkpages. Also, per this ban, you would not be allowed to take part in discussions of political subjects on noticeboards, user talkpages, or anywhere else. Please consult WP:TBAN for the general concept of a topic ban.
2. A 1RR ban. Again, please read WP:1RR to see what that means.
3. Restraint on talkpages: keep your talkpage posts a reasonable length. I'm leaving it to your good faith to decide what is reasonable. But your posts should not, at the very least, be much longer than everybody else's. Also keep the number down to five posts per 24 hours per talkpage. If you feel you have good reason to post more in a particular case, ask me first. (I'm sorry, Springee, but I'm dubious of your proposed anti-bludgeoning talkpage rule ["You will limit your talk page replies to either replies to your comments or original comments."]. I don't quite see how that would stop Philomathes from overwhelming talkpages.)
4. Obviously this is policy and applies to everybody, but still: you must not attack people and not assume bad faith. And, as I told you once in a warning that you did not respond to: show respect. Attacks wrapped in formal language aren't better than crude name-calling (I gave an example).

I hope you will edit with reasonable diligence during the 6 months, to show that you can be constructive when politics aren't in question. If you go away for 6 months and then turn up with no practice under your belt, it seems likely that you'll relapse and be blocked again. Note also that you're free to edit all the Wikimedia SISTER projects, with no restrictions. Indeed, that would be true even if you remained blocked here.

Please consider carefully before you accept or decline these conditions, Philomathes. Let me know if anything is unclear, or if you have a counterproposal on any point. Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

After 6 months, would these conditions be lifted automatically, or would they be subject to a formal appeal and be contingent upon further administrative judgement/debate?

Also, would my work on, say, United Nations agreements be allowed to continue per the 6 month post-1992 politics ban? I'm mainly interested in those that have "stub" classification and "high" importance ranking. I see a lot of potential for improvement, and it's something I know a lot about. Most of these agreements and treaties were written in the 1940s and 50s. I can't foresee any of my edits there causing controversy, but I would always adhere to the 1RR ban.

If I can have a bit of clarification on those two points, I'm very open to these conditions. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. These are time-limited conditions that I propose, for 6 months. They would be lifted automatically.

You mean United Nations agreements such as Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations? Yes, it would be fine for you to continue editing that. If any of your work should start to abut on post-1992 events, you'd better ask, though. If you would like to explicitly declare that you accept my conditions, I can unblock you right away. But don't hurry on my account. I'll be going to bed in a couple of hours, but it can be taken care of tomorrow (in my timezone, UTC+1) just as well. Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that article is one I'd like to continue improving, along with similar articles on U.N. agreements. I accept your conditions without reservation. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You have been unblocked. Happy editing! Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC).