User talk:Saflieni

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Maggie Borg
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maggie Borg, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.m3p.com.mt/wiki/Maggie_Borg.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Saflieni, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! sciencewatcher (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

May 2014
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. sciencewatcher (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Your edit added a reference, which is one of the things that is specifically mentioned as being not a minor edit). Don't worry about it - it's not really obvious what exactly a 'minor edit' actually is. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Letters to the editor
Hi, I didn't get a reply from you about my question as to whether you wrote any of those letters to the editor. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator intervention notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The complaint was unwarranted and that discussion is now closed find in favour of Saflieni --Leopardtail (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you for work
Thanks for you recent efforts to improve the quality of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Treatment page. They are greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

December 2020
HouseOfChange, I have asked you not to take your Wikipedia-wide campaign to discredit me to my Talk page. Save your manipulations for the administrators. Saflieni (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I thought I could use some time during the holidays to prepare my case for Arbcom, but a count of untruthful statements (if this an appropriate term) produces a total of 103 incidents in the Noticeboard discussion alone: 48 by HouseOfChange, 4 by Buidhe, 3 by Drmies as quoted by Buidhe, 24 by Drmies in his own comments and 6 by EdJohnston (not counting other commenters). It's going to be a Herculean task to describe them all. The incidents involving the two admins escalated from fairly simple miscommunications, so rather than writing a book size report we could examine the origins of the dispute and resolve the matter informally.Saflieni (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

From the way the dispute was handled by the administrators I got the impression that on Wikipedia it's ok to lie but that the word "lie" itself is considered uncivil and that using that word to describe a lie is considered a personal attack. I understand the middle part - that the word is confrontational and therefore best avoided - but the rest still seemed odd. However, reading up on Wikipedia policy I notice that according to WP:IUC lying is listed as contributing to an uncivil environment. So are several other behaviours I've experienced that were condoned by the administrators, who in some cases were themselves the culprits. Although I agree with the slap on the wrist I've received for using uncivil language, I feel that applying double standards is unjust and sends the message that not all Wikipedians are equal. The behaviours I'm referring to are emphasized below:

1. Direct rudeness


 * (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
 * (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
 * (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
 * (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

2. Other uncivil behaviours


 * (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
 * (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
 * (c) sexual harassment
 * (d) lying
 * (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they said something they didn't say Saflieni (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

How not to debate the trivial and the major issues.
Example 1: My translation of the french phrase 'les théories du complot' into 'conspiracy theories' led to four weeks of obstructions, denial, and bad faith accusations 

The Wikipedia article In Praise of Blood (about a book that promotes fringe theories) contained this sentence originally:

"During a promotional tour in Belgium which included speeches at three universities, a group of sixty scientists, researchers, journalists, historians and eye-witnesses such as Romeo Dallaire, published an open letter in Le Soir criticizing the universities for giving the impression that by promoting Judi Rever's book they supported her conspiracy theories and denial."

Contributor HouseOfChange, in his very first edit of that page, deleted "conspiracy theories and denial" and replaced it with "double genocide theory". In the edit summary HoC wrote: "BLP, NPOV". No further explanation.

Because HoC's edit introduced an error, I restored the original version of that sentence and pinged HoC to come and discuss the matter on the Talk page. In reply HoC wrote: "My edits were clearly explained in edit summaries based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV." No further explanation again, so I answered: "You change "conspiracy theories and denial" to "double genocide theory" but the source speaks of conspiracy theories and denial in this context." Next HoC started to accuse me of "edit-warring" and of "repeated efforts to WP:OWN this article."

It took until the ANI complaint for HoC to finally explain: "My first edit to the article (21:21, 2020 November 30) tried to change what I saw as a serious BLP issue: using Wikipedia's voice to accuse a living person of "conspiracy theories and denial." In haste, I changed the phrase to something less pejorative."

So HoC assumed it was me who accused the author of "conspiracy theories and denial" instead of the sixty experts who wrote that in their open letter.

HoC further stated that "... "conspiracy theories and denial" is not a (translated) phrase taken from the source. Paragraph 4 (which you need to subscribe to Le Soir in order to see) comes close, quoting the group letter as saying "En promouvant les théories du complot de Judi Rever, vous avez donné lʼimpression de soutenir le négationnisme et le déni." Why make claims about sources without checking first what they say?"

This is the most curious part: According to HoC I was telling more than one Lie, but he himself quotes the source saying "les théories du complot" which literally means "conspiracy theories", and "le négationnisme et le déni" which literally means "negationism and denial". One may disagree with the way I paraphrased, but to accuse me of making up the phrase "conspiracy theories" myself is a serious accusation that questions my integrity. In this context it's ironic that HoC himself inserted a phrase which the experts did not use in their criticism of the universities.

To make matters worse: A week before HoC falsely accused me on the Noticeboard, I had already suggested a compromise to move beyond the issue:

HoC accepted the compromise, but continued with his false claims: "Basing your edits on unpublished earlier sources or translations is OR, and "citing" them to a published source that says something different is wrong." In the edit summary HoC wrote: "applauding the good suggestion, rejecting misrepresentation of the source"."

HoC "apologized" not for his false accusations but for "not explaining Wikipedia policy" with more tact:

"To clarify, Saflieni stated above The original version ended in "... her conspiracy theories and denial." This was paraphrased after translation from a sentence in the source which criticized the universities, and contained the phrases "les théories du complot" (conspiracy theories) and "le négationnisme et le déni." (negationism and denial), but not "theory of double genocide". From this, I got the impression Saflieni was basing his claims "the original version" or maybe "the translation," rather than from the published version cited. I apologize for not being more tactful in my explanation that to do so would be against policy." HoC hides the apology from view with an "extended content" banner.

So after nearly four weeks of pointless debate over the meaning of "les theories du complot" with the ongoing attacks against my integrity it turns out that HoC has misunderstood that my reference to the "original version" was to the sentence in the Wikipedia article and that the campaign to discredit me was based on a wrong "impression".

The sad thing is that it's business as usual.

Example 2: My arguments that the fringe theories in the book have no basis in science led to weeks of obstructions, circular reasoning and bad faith accusations

The big issues are discussed in pretty much the same way as the trivial ones. See the endless debates about fringe theories such as the double genocide theory. HoC argues that the book doesn't use that exact phrase, or that the title of the book says something else, or that the phrase is "jargon" and therefore must not be used in the article, and so on. But Rever describes a Hutu genocide in her book that allegedly occurred alongside the Tutsi genocide, which makes up a double genocide. And Rever says in interviews and on twitter that she adheres to the double genocide theory. All experts with just a few exceptions reject that theory, whether they use the phrase double genocide or just reject the Hutu genocide (which reduces double genocide to single genocide). Trying to dodge this reality is not helping the article.

HoC's latest claim: "Rever does NOT say that there was an equal and opposite killing of Hutus and Tutsis--she says that Hutus were killed by the RPF not by their neighbors." 

But Rever claims: "(…) a growing body of evidence now shows that Tutsi civilians betrayed and killed their Hutu neighbors in the same way that Hutus turned on Tutsis. The dynamic at work was chillingly similar.” (IPOB, p. 106)

And Rever claims: “These Tutsis -both abakada and civilians loyal to the RPF government and army- committed unspeakable atrocities against Hutus, crimes comparable to those committed by Hutu civilians and lnterahamwe.”

I have already shown HoC these quotes on the Talk page as well as the ones where Rever claims similar death tolls. And so we go around in circles until eternity. Saflieni (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Where do you see an attack on you in my statement My first edit to the article (21:21, 2020 November 30) tried to change what I saw as a serious BLP issue: using Wikipedia's voice to accuse a living person of "conspiracy theories and denial."? I had no idea who had inserted that phrase into the article, and I did not care who had done it. My concern was the BLP issue, as I said.


 * This is an article about a book, which is about RPF crimes, including what Rever calls a genocide by RPF against Hutus. The book does not describe a back-and-forth equal double genocide. (It is WP:SYNTH to infer from cherry-picked quotes that Rever personally supports this discredited theory.) In the BOOK, Rever acknowledges the 1994 genocide against Tutsis, incited and pre-planned by Hutu leadership, but largely carried out by Hutu civilians. Understandably, many Tutsis wanted to ally themselves with the Tutsi-led RPF against the Hutu government seeking their deaths, and understandably some Tutsis also sought revenge against Hutu neighbors. Even if the "dynamic" or the "atrocities" were similar, the scale was not, according to the book. The largescale killing of Hutus was carried out, her book repeatedly says, by the RPF. The book accuses the RPF, not ordinary Tutsis, of a genocide against Hutus. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Like I said: until eternity ... If Rever's own statements aren't enough, what's left? Naturally, HoC has to add more false accusations: "WP:SYNTH"; "infer from cherry-picked quotes". The one-sided discussion HoC is conducting on the article's Talk page continues the same pattern:


 * HouseOfChange: "[Rever] also says that some Tutsis took revenge against Hutu neighbors. That small-scale killing, deplorable as it may be, she does not describe as an "equal and opposite" genocide."


 * But Rever writes: "In many cases the Tutsis involved in the killings were not seeking to avenge the death or mutilation of their families. Some of the worst Tutsi-on-Hutu violence was preemptive, occurring early and in areas where no crimes against Tutsis had yet been reported ..." (IPOB, p. 106)


 * And Rever writes: "Tutsi civilian cadres worked hand in hand with Kagame's intelligence agents to locate and kill prominent Hutus and their families and supporters. Despite the claim by Western human rights organizations and media that there can be no moral equivalence between the two sides, Hutus in RPF-controlled areas faced similar risks of annihilation as Tutsis did in Hutu-controlled areas." (p. 228)


 * And Rever writes: "Hutu extremists called killing Tutsi civilians "work." It is the same word Tutsi extremists used to describe exterminating Hutus." (p. 230)


 * And I could go on quoting her or scholars commenting but no amount of evidence is ever enough to satisfy HoC of the fact that HoC's POV is an extremely isolated minority view. And now HoC has proceeded to add "background" information even though HoC is not a specialized historian and someone will have to come in to correct his edits, starting the whole cycle all over again. That's why I keep referring to Wikipedia's advice on competence WP:CIR and the Dunning Kruger effect (which btw is misrepresented as well here on Wikipedia). But who's listening?


 * Don't post anymore untruthful statements or suggestions, like I asked you before.Saflieni (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Could you please stop attacking me on your talk page?
 * Long before Habyarimana's plane crashed, many Tutsis had plenty of reason for wanting revenge on Hutu neighbors. Hutus killed Tutsis en masse and exiled hundreds of thousand of Tutsis during the Rwandan Revolution. Revenge was for 1959, according to at least one Rever informant. (Rever, p. 232)
 * I have not seen any quote where Rever says that genocide against Hutus was carried out by Tutsi civilians rather than saying genocide against Hutus was carried out by the RPF. Or any quote where Rever says that Tutsi civilians killed Hutu civilians in NUMBERS similar to the numbers of Tutsis killed by Hutu civilians. It seems pointless to attack things I didn't say.
 * I worry about your ability to edit constructively in article-space if you continue to focus on my ignorance, incompetence, and alleged POV, rather than on what RS say about one not-very-notable nonfiction book.
 * Update, I really do not have the pro-Rever, anti-Kagame POV you attribute to me. Paul Kagame is a complicated figure who has done a lot of good things for Rwanda, despite the bloody trajectory he rode to power. Furthermore, Western governments (turning a blind eye to what happened on 31 August 2020 to Paul Rusesabagina) are unlikely to care about RPF crimes way back in the 1990s. I just want to help create a balanced article that focuses on the book, which is about RPF crimes, mostly during the 1990s. Theories about the 1994 genocide against Tutsis are part of the book, but not the book's main focus. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And again ... Let's compare once more what HoC claims is in the book and what Rever actually writes:


 * HouseOfChange writes: "In the BOOK, Rever acknowledges the 1994 genocide against Tutsis, incited and pre-planned by Hutu leadership, but largely carried out by Hutu civilians."


 * But Rever writes: "The killers were sometimes neighbors living on the same hill. But more often they were members of a Hutu militia, the civil defense force or the military."


 * This is again very different. Why, according to HoC, double genocide would require matching numbers of civilian perpetrators is a mystery anyway.


 * Since the framing Saflieni dynamic is starting again I'll just delete any future posts from HoC on this page.


 * If HoC worries at all, they should worry about WP:CIR. It's not personal but practical. The problem isn't ignorance per se (anyone can learn) but overconfidence and belief perseverance [].Saflieni (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Rwandan genocide case request declined by the committee
The case request Rwandan genocide has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by the arbitrators detail why the case request was declined. A permanent link to the case request can be viewed through this wikilink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dreamy Jazz The request was withdrawn for reasons provided by email to the Committee on 2 January. Also see my communication here .Saflieni (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that discussion when closing, and the email from an arbitrator I saw didn't mention that it was withdrawn. There was another email I did not see which said it was withdrawn. I have updated the log at Arbitration/Index/Declined requests to reflect this and the comment at the other parties user talk pages. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerns About Admin Abuse
You have asked about admin abuse, and about what appear to be your concern that you are being unfairly treated. Maybe I am misreading your statements, but most new editors who complain about admin abuse and about unfair treatment do not fit well into Wikipedia. You seem to be coming across as an editor who complains about admin abuse. Either you might consider changing the tone of your complaints, or you may be setting yourself up. Some editors who complain about admin abuse are actually editors who either don't like to compromise or want to own articles or are just rude. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon Not sure what you're referring to, but a civil way to handle a complaint would be to go over the evidence together and try to resolve the issue. I'm not "some editors". I'm an actual person with feelings, thank you.Saflieni (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that you are complaining a lot about admin abuse, and about what you at one point referred to as a movement to frame Saflieni. Editors who complain about admin abuse and who complain that they are not being treated fairly usually find Wikipedia to be an unpleasant environment.  There are various possible explanations, but that is the way it is.  Maybe you already think that Wikipedia is unpleasant.  If not, you are projecting the image that you consider Wikipedia to be unpleasant, and such editors usually do wind up finding Wikipedia to be unpleasant.  This is just an observation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, Thank you for the explanation. I may have been too confrontational in my language, which I'm trying hard to avoid since the block, but I never lie. What I asked for is that admins and arbitrators analyze the facts fairly and neutrally before jumping to conclusions and condemning me. General assumptions may be helpful in a general fashion, but specific incidents have specific evidence. Saflieni (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You are now subject to an editing restriction
Hello Saflieni, I've taken an administrative action on the basis of Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. You may not edit or discuss articles, talk pages, or other content relating to Rwandan history, broadly construed, effective as of the receipt of this notice. This should be considered a community-imposed topic ban, so any appeals should be made at WP:AN not to me directly. If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Rosguill, You can't ban me over a content issue, especially one you don't understand. Ignoring my explanation is not respectful. I'll copy the discussion here:


 * Saflieni, Your insistence that the diff you shared in your response to me was an adequate example of evidence in response HoC's question is the reason that I decided to pull the trigger on this. The article cited in :the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda. On its own, this could be taken as a forgivable mistake. Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC, it crosses the line. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's simply not true. Vidal explains carefully how the book develops the double genocide theory. The title is:
 * Judi Rever will not let anything stand in the way of her quest to document a second Rwandan genocide. If that's not enough, I'll repeat the quote I used to prove the point:
 * "It reads like a prosecutor’s closing argument: the massacres are described in such a way as to classify them as genocide. Rever begins with hints, such as a quote from a former RPA soldier stating that the massacre of thousands of people perpetrated in October 1997 was meant to eliminate as much of the Hutu population as possible. Regarding the large-scale killings carried out in 1994 in the Byumba region, in North-eastern Rwanda, another former RPA soldier claims that the leaders of the RPF had settled on the killings as a way to make the land available for Tutsi refugees, formerly exiled in Uganda. According to Rever, the military authorities who organised and committed the massacres therefore took part in a joint criminal enterprise. This legal notion, introduced by the ICTY, was retained by the ICTR. By the conclusion of the book, the hints become an unequivocal statement: “[The] darkest secret that the FPR hid from the international community is that its troops continued to commit genocide against the Hutus in 1994 and throughout the following years.”"
 * Besides, you ignore every piece of evidence I have posted here and elsewhere. Your diffs aren't valid as I've explained with evidence. What's the point of an ANI if you only have ears for one side? Saflieni (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification
Dear Rosguill. The notificaton you left on my Talk page says: If you have clarification questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

A severe punishment like a ban requires strong evidence. Would you mind clarifying the following issues? I'm considering an appeal and so it would be helpful to understand the reasoning behind your decision before I do that.


 * 1) What was your reason for ignoring my requests to provide evidence in support of the allegations? Example: I'd like to know on what grounds people support or reject complaints.(...) If anyone has questions they're welcome on my Talk page. . The unsubstantiated allegations continued even after your action. My reference to Wikipedia policy went unheeded too.. One commenter simply linked to definitions of concepts, not to diffs, others didn't provide any diffs or diffs that did not support the allegations.
 * 2) Please explain why my rebuttals were not taken into consideration? Due process would require an impartial hearing of both sides and scrutiny of the evidence provided by both sides. In my "detailed response" and several comments I've provided evidence of several falsehoods in the complaint. Irrefutable evidence of falsehoods and manipulations trumps language issues, I would think.
 * 3) Would you please provide diffs for these statements: Saflieni has improperly and repeatedly construed disagreements over content as either incompetence or conspiracy on the part of other editors. And: Coming after 2 ANI threads and thousands of words of discussion, and coupled with insults at HoC .... Please explain "improper". Improper suggests "unwarranted", "uncivil", "insincere" and/or "lacking evidence." I can't judge this without specific information.
 * 4) What was the reason for accepting the case? The ANI complaint was basically about three minor content disputes. Most of the other comments posted by the accuser were also content discussions that belong on the article's Talk page (including incidents that were actually resolved by me compromising). The alleged behavioral issues were either frivolous (even the filing of an Arbcom request supported by 25 diffs was listed as a behavioral issue); or they were old and already dealt with; or were gathered from discussions on other editors' Talk pages rather than the article's Talk page; or were simply invented. In my comments I've provided detailed evidence for several falsehoods in the complaint, see point 2. Those are violations of WP:IUC. In fact all examples listed as rude or uncivil - except 2C - were violated in this case by the accusing parties.
 * 5) Was there a reason for not treating everyone as equals? Most of the comments posted by the filing editor and by others contained personal attacks, some more severe than anything I've ever been accused of, e.g..
 * 6) I'm curious to learn why practically every item on the ANI advice list was ignored: . Care to explain?
 * 7) I'm still trying to get my head around the giant leap from I think that this may be closed without action. to: It seems my last comment calling for a close was premature. and immediately issuing a ban. This needs more explaining than the two diffs you provided which turned out to be a difference of opinion about a content issue. Would you mind clarifying and responding to my explanation, copied here:

Thank you. Saflieni (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors evaluating a dispute are not as a rule required to provide diffs to back up their assessments of the situation as it stands, particularly when evidence had already been provided. You characterization of allegations as unsubstantiated is at odds with my reading of Talk:In Praise of Blood.
 * Rebuttals were unnecessary, as I had read through the talk page discussion and formed my opinions based on that discussion (as well as the ArbCom case filing), rather than based on HoC's specific accusations.
 * This list is not exhaustive, but I think is illustrative
 * , insults directed at HoC
 * , sarcasm and insults directed at Buidhe
 * , sarcasm directed at HoC
 * , responding to repeated requests for sources with the same source that did not back up the claim for which sources were requested.
 * I think that the phrase "accepting the case" is not really an accurate description of how ANI works generally or of my participation in this discussion specifically, but to answer the main point of your question, because I was looking for ANI cases that needed additional input from an uninvolved admin and this was the oldest discussion that I felt like I could help with.
 * HoC's behavior was taken into account, and was the reason that I called for the case to be closed without action at certain points, where it seemed like you could amicably resolve the content disputes and go back to editing constructively. I changed my mind about this after seeing the continued discussion at Talk:In Praise of Blood on January 14th and 15th, and after re-reading the original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation first against buidhe and later against HoC.
 * Believe me, I'm as frustrated that this advice was ignored as well.
 * HoC asked you for a source that stated that double genocide was the main topic of the book. You provided a source that stated that the book rehabilitates double genocide theory. Had this been the only instance, or even one of a few instances, of failing to cooperate appropriately it would not have been a big deal. But as an example of continued behavior, coupled with a sarcastic jab, even after being blocked for personal attacks and knowing full well that an ANI discussion related to this behavior was ongoing, it made it clear that you are not able to collaborate on this subject matter on Wikipedia at this time.
 * I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll note as well that my notice to you on your talk page was intended to invite questions regarding the scope and the enforcement of the ban, not an invitation to relitigate the ANI case. I decided to actually respond to these questions in the hopes that they can put the matter to rest. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, very enlightening but also a little disturbing, unfortunately. Allow me to respond:
 * Which evidence was provided? And I mean evidence, not allegations.
 * Here you admit that my evidence was not taken into account, because you had already formed your opinion. This was obvious - nobody took it into account - but raises serious questions about fair play.
 * The previous ANI closed on 22 December. The first two of your diffs are from before that date. This means that they were already dealt with and you're in fact re-opening an old case. The second ANI was about other issues and other "evidence". Nevertheless, you might want to consider this information:
 * Two important things you've overlooked: The remark: the point is that you shouldn't be editing this page without explicit consensus. referred to an agreemnt we made on EdJohnston's Talk page. but this agreement was suddenly abandoned without a word of warning.. The other remark was wrong, I admit, but it was made in the spirit of other Talk page posts that addressed me in the same manner, such as: ...if you want your POV to be represented on Wikipedia you would be better off publishing your own review on the book. Or: If you can't correctly understand talk page posts that then perhaps you should try editing Wikipedia in a different language. Or: your clumsy methods repeatedly violate WP:POV and WP:BLP. And so on.
 * This is actually a civil explanation of what the field of genocide studies encompasses. There's no sarcasm in it anywhere. The response to it was, however, a perfect example of sarcasm, see:
 * No sarcasm intended. You're reading something into it. Besides, I've explained this exchange already. I hope you're not implying I'm being dishonest over this.
 * ...the same source that did not back up the claim That's your POV, not a fact.
 * So you were just a passer-by? May I ask if you have any relevant knowledge of the topic, or about complaint procedures?
 * ... original discussions, where you initiated the use of uncivil argumentation Did I? Don't forget that there was editing activity going on at the same time. You don't see that on the Talk page of course but is part of the discussion. Editing can be done in a manner to spite others. What you see on the Talk page is an effect of that. When HoC arrived at the scene they were aggressive, accusing me of biased editing and saying the article was turned into an "attack page". This attitude never changed. They also use framing language, ascribing opinions and intentions to me which I don't have. That's very suggestive to outsiders. For instance: Saflieni, meanwhile, does not want the article to discuss RPF war crimes Find such a casual remark a hundred times and you'll swear it's the truth.
 * You could have applied a few.
 * Vidal's explanation is very clear. Not sure why you insist on this point. Besides, Colette Braeckman says the same thing: "Throughout the stories and elements taken from reports written for the ICTR, a common thread appears, an increasingly obvious intention: to lead the reader to conclude that another genocide was carried out in Rwanda and then in Congo, that of the Hutus and potential opponents, even Tutsis, and this for the sole benefit of the combatants from Uganda, these former refugees eager to recover their land and to exercise unchallenged power." (Au fil des récits et des éléments extraits des rapports rédigés à l’intention du TPIR, un fil rouge apparaît, une intention de plus en plus évidente : mener le lecteur à conclure qu’un autre génocide a été mené au Rwanda puis au Congo, celui des Hutus et des opposants potentiels fussent ils Tutsis, et cela au seul bénéfice des combattants venus d’Ouganda, ces anciens réfugiés désireux de récupérer leurs terres et d’exercer un pouvoir sans partage.)
 * Ironically, the part of Vidal's article that you used for you interpretation was actually quoted in the IPOB article (different context though) and deleted by HoC with this (sarcastic) edit summary: Association fallacy. Many murderers like pizza but this "fact" does not belong in the article about pizza. Saflieni (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't have time to rehash the ANI in this level of detail. You're going to have to look for advice elsewhere. signed,Rosguill talk 00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the evidence ... Saflieni (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to "Clueless" allegations
Robert McClenon, You said:
 * 1) You told the ArbCom that this was not a content dispute. Now you are saying that you should not be banned because this is a content dispute.
 * 2) That inconsistency supports my statement to the ArbCom, which still seems to be valid, that you, User:Saflieni, do not have a clue.
 * 3) One way that clueless editors are dealt with is an indefinite competency block.

My response:
 * 1) If you look up and read the previous post copied from the ANI, you will find the content dispute between Rosguill and me. As you can tell from my explanation, Rosguill misinterpreted a discussion between HoC and me on the Talk page of IPOB. As a result Rosguill viewed it as a personal attack and banned me. But it wasn't. This is the problem of editors not familiar with the subject jumping to conclusions. And it is the reason for saying that Rosguill bans me over a content dispute. Arbcom has nothing to do with it.
 * 2) You mix up my Arbcom request about fringe theories and advocacy with this ANI. They are separate cases about different issues. No offense but don't tell me I have no clue if you can't tell them apart.
 * 3) In your ANI comments you said that you found my information at Arbcom incomprehensible. So why didn't you ask me to enlighten you? I'm also wondering why you didn't focus on the non-content evidence which made up the major part of my Arbcom request: HoCs persistent attacks against scholars, and against me for using their academic work as sources for the article? Note that HoC added another attack in their statement: Calling out people who criticize Rwanda's RPF as "revisionsts" and "genocide deniers", (aka "genocide blackmail") is very common. In Rever's case, it has already resulted in death threats[34] and in stories such as "How Judi Rever is a cynical genocide revisionist, intent on murdering victims a second time." What HoC is suggesting, based mainly on non-RS sources, is that scholars and other experts who critically analyse Rever's work aren't just doing their job but are part of a conspiracy to stifle her on behalf of a foreign government, perhaps even causing death threats. This was another example of advocacy. A discussion of those examples could have cleared up any misunderstandings on my part and on your part, and might have given direction to further discussions. Now everyone is just throwing mud around.Saflieni (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not "suggesting" that scholars and other experts who critically analyse Rever's work .. are part of a conspiracy to stifle her on behalf of a foreign government. Smart and good people have many reasons to emphasize Kagame's positive achievements, including fear for the future of Rwanda if its stability shatters. Smart and good people aren't immune from saying mean things about other smart and good people--one side neener-neeners with "genocide denier" and the other side nah-nah-nahs back with "genocide blackmail." HouseOfChange (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Really. That allegation was preceded by: In Praise of Blood is a book article, not a WALLOFSHAME about its BLP author. So unless you were posting random sentences you were referring to the sources cited on that topic in the article: The sixty experts who published the open letter in Le Soir; Hintjens and van Oijen; the signatories of professor Basabose's letter; and perhaps others you had in mind such as the seven authors mentioned in the Reydams' article you cite. Your non-RS source for the "blackmail"-remark clarifies: This crime [genocide denial/ideology] is used to control speech on crimes committed by high-ranking officials in Rwanda. The government of Rwanda and its lobbyist have managed to keep its narrative through coercion so that people who are not familiar with Rwanda simply believe this faulty narrative. And next you connect it all to Judi Rever and the threats. Saflieni (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was talking about YOUR actions, about YOUR apparently trying to turn a Wikipedia article about a book into a WALLOFSHAME about its author. I was not criticizing the scholars whose writing you cherry-picked as support for your POV-pushing. It is a looooong leap of logic to infer (from one mention of the Rwanda gov't in one article I cited for a two-word expression) that I accuse everyone who criticizes "double genocide" or Judi Rever of being in cahoots with the Rwanda government. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of misconduct allegations without evidence again. So, if it was me you referred to, the rest of it is about me too. Good to know.Saflieni (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Further unsolicited advice
At ANI, I dropped in to offer you unsolicited advice about your combative approach. Regrettably, you did not change your behavior in response to my comments (or anyone else's). The result was a completely unsurprising (to me, maybe not to you) sanction. So, now let me try again (reminding you that I have no prior interaction or opinion about any of the people involved in this discussion, nor any knowledge or strong feeling about the underlying dispute): your behavior is obviously problematic, and if you keep it up you are likely to be indefinitely blocked in short order. If you do not what that to happen, you should immediately disengage from your antagonists and from whatever issues you have been fighting with them about. I have closed the extra tail of the ANI thread to give you a clearer opportunity to do this -- I hope you take it. --JBL (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * JBL - Maybe I would understand it better if you'd explain my behaviour relative to the behaviour of those who accuse and attack me. I've invited everyone else to discuss the issues peacefully and have offered explanations where possible. I remember I tried with you too but was cut short. Do you want to give a dialogue a try, or is ANI a one directional, accusation equals guilt, do as I say or else, kind of place? Saflieni (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a relative question: no one is going to judge you by subtracting the antagonistic or combative things other people do from the things you do. I am not interested in changing your mind on any topic, nor in having an extended dialogue, but I think that you should be able to step outside your current dispute and make the following strategic calculation: so far, what you have done has worked very poorly (you are topic-banned, your interlocutors are not); you are now clearly marked as the problematic party in the dispute (fairly or not, it doesn't matter even a little bit); ergo, it is essential that the argument comes to an end, in order not to have additional problems attributed to you (again, fairly or not is irrelevant).  You personally cannot control what the people you're arguing with do, but you can make the choice to stop engaging with them.  (Does that mean someone else gets the last word, or makes an unrebutted accusation or attack?  Yes, it does.  Such is life.) I think that this will be the last thing I have to offer on this topic. --JBL (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why judge me at all? What is it with the people who involved themselves in this case that they're so angry and judgmental and trigger happy, with their stalking and scheming and reporting on each other, yelling BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE 24 hours a day? It's not healthy. Your fairly or not, it doesn't matter even a little bit sounds like a great header for the ANI page because that sums it up fairly well - see - but I still find it hard to believe that this is what the majority of editors want Wikipedia to be like. Saflieni (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Saflieni - I tried to caution you ten days ago about your constant complaints of admin abuse and of being mistreated. Because I tried to avoid being personal, because I know that you are sensitive to your own feelings, I referred to some editors.  You had the audacity to accuse me of depersonalizing, which was nonsense.  I don't very often say anything so harsh as that an editor is posting nonsense.  What I am saying is that I have seen a lot of editors who come in, and promptly start complaining about admin abuse and personal attacks.  Editors who are quick to take offense, and you are an editor who is quick to take offense, usually do not have long histories in Wikipedia.  Either they give up, or the community gives up on them and blocks or bans them.  Stop demanding that we provide you with diffs or evidence when we are trying to advise you to change your style.  You are making things difficult for yourself.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Robert, communication is a two way street. Most of these personal disputes at some point began with a minor miscommunication or a misunderstanding of content matter. People jump to conclusions before having all the facts. The only way to resolve these issues is through dialogue. But I have yet to encounter an editor or admin here who doesn't blow a fuse when they're contradicted, rightfully or wrongfully, with factual information. Everyone makes mistakes including you and me. Wikipedia principles and policies apply to all editors, admins and arbitrators, whether they're good or bad, old or new. It's the policies that demand evidence and a fair discussion. Try and we could both learn something. Saflieni (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Saflieni - Yes. Some editors don't demand diffs or comparable evidence when another editor tries to give them advice.  And I have known editors who didn't "blow a fuse" when there was a factual dispute.  And you are correct when you lecture other editors sanctimoniously about the need for dialogue, but sometimes they notice that your tone is overbearing, and that you don't seem to be taking your own advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Robert, I agree that at times I've been overbearing. You can't deny that we all have, though. Take as example your response to me saying that the topic ban is based on a content dispute. You mixed that up with me saying the Arbcom case was not a content dispute. I could've cleared up that misunderstanding if you had you asked me to. Instead you called me clueless, adding that clueless editors get an indefinite competency block. That could be viewed as overbearing, don't you agree? Besides, put yourself in my shoes. I've been routinely accused of serious misdeeds. Outsiders are repeating the allegations as if they're facts. How would you respond? Saflieni (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * During the first ANI discussion in December I remarked a few times that I'm getting mixed messages about Wikipedia policies. After I started editing the controversial article in November I was urged to read and abide by Wikipedia policies. But after having done that, I've been warned to stop referring to specific policies because some editors and admins might not like it. That's confusing and demotivating because it looks like double standards. In this case I could refer to what is stated under Administrators Accountability: Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. But that will undoubtedly rub someone the wrong way again. Perhaps the community should make up their minds about the value of Wikipedia policies and when they should or should not be applicable.Saflieni (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violation block
 To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community, and for topic ban violation, you have been blocked from editing for one month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard). El_C 01:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: Not even an explanation?Saflieni (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I would presume you'd review your own appeal at AN, no? But, sure, I'll elaborate. First, it is obvious that Jimbo was not going to touch your appeal (obviously, he responded to multiple participants in the sections that followed), and that is because he doesn't do these sort of appeals anymore, and hasn't for a very, very long time. Even back in the mid-2000s, when I joined, he barely did anything of the sort (as opposed to early 2000s, when Wikipedia was more of a quasi-message board in size and scope). Now, to use your appeal there (again, a dead-end appeal in that forum) to continue to violate your topic ban by engaging in discussion about restricted content, that is not okay. Secondly, it's one thing to draft an appeal to Jimbo, submit it, then wait and see if he engages it. But, as I note in your appeal, your later violation was not drafted as an appeal. Yes, Jimbo's page does serve as a bit of a safe space (in the non-PC sense) in deference to his founder's role, but that only applies to a very limited degree, especially when he neglects to respond. His talk page is not intended to serve as a free-for-all that allows one to circumvent the community's will. An appeal there, such as it is, isn't a license to follow it up with violations to the sanction. El_C 07:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni, I acknowledge being in receipt of your email, but I would rather discuss all matters pertaining to the block on-wiki and on the record. Thank you. El_C 07:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: I have followed the protocol as it is indicated on the policy pages. I've explained this in my appeal on Jimbo's Talk page. You must have seen that. First I appealed to Arbcom as advised on the blocking policy page. Three arbitrators responded by email, but they all thought I was blocked instead of banned. They said I should appeal at AN. Because they obviously didn't read my appeal, their decision could be appealed to Jimbo, again according to the policy pages. I've explained that too. Jimbo remained silent, so I took the arbitrators advice and appealed at AN. Now you're telling me that's not ok too?
 * On AN I've showed with evidence that the topic ban is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Now I'm blocked for "violating" a topic ban that is not valid in the first place.
 * Everything so far has been the result of misunderstanding texts. No offense but you're adding a misunderstanding too. How is this not a difference of opinions about the content of a source:
 * "The article cited in the diff does not say that IPOB is a book about double genocide (the claim HoC was asking you to support), but rather alleges that the book has repopularized claims that a double genocide occurred in Rwanda."
 * It would really help a lot if admins tried to understand a topic before jumping to conclusions. And about the violation. The responses to my appeal on Jimbo's page were all about the topic. I'm not supposed to engage in that discussion and let hostile editors post one falsehood after another? How is that fair or a protection of Wikipedia content? You might want to put some energy in checking if I'm right. I have suggested fact checking and a referee. Both of these suggestions were shot down. It's like editors, admins and arbitrators choose to support disinformation and dishonesty, simply because it's easier. Saflieni (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni, again, it's one thing to appeal to Jimbo, then wait to see if he responds and go from there. But it's another thing entirely to go on and on there, for 2 weeks, discussing the topic in contravention of your ban. I'm not sure I'm able to explain it any more clearly than that. El_C 08:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: You don't respond to anything I just wrote. If you read the discussion that followed my appeal request on Jimbo's page, which started and was perpetuated by HoC, you'll find that I repeatedly asked them to stop their baiting and trying to lure me into violating the topic ban. I don't think I did violate it, btw. I merely advised others to go and check for themselves.
 * Why don't you respond to my information? You're all so trigger happy, but there's a bigger picture to consider. Saflieni (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni, well, I feel like I'm addressing the salient points. I'm not sure how much "baiting" counts as mitigating circumstances to violating the ban. But, anyway, the violation cited at your AN appeal (diff) doesn't even appear to qualify as that. Again, you should have just submitted the appeal, waited to see if Jimbo responded, and that's pretty much it. But, instead, you abused this rather archaic practice by going on and on, discussing the prohibited content for 2 weeks. That's the heart of the matter. El_C 09:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C. You're still avoiding my information but at least respond to this:
 * It's one thing to block me for allegedly violating the ban. But it's another thing to close my AN appeal after 23 minutes, thus preventing a discussion about the validity of that ban. It doesn't make sense.
 * Regardless of what you think I do or should do, none of it changes the truth of what I wrote in that post which you take as a violation of the ban. Considering the underlying subject and the quote of Che on your Talk page, you should take note of that and look into it without prejudice. Some editors manage to post hundreds of falsehoods about a sensitive subject and get away with it while others get blocked and banned for raising a red flag about it. If nobody can see the fault in that, Wikipedia is in big trouble. Saflieni (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You feel that I'm being unresponsive, I feel like you are being unresponsive, what can I say? Anyway, I'll try to explain it again, but after that, it's probably best you launch an unblock request, so that the block can be reviewed by another admin. First, it's not alleged, it's pretty clear cut. Second, the appeal was closed "on technical grounds" because the appellant (you) was no longer able to participate in their own appeal. Anyway, that bit about Che and so on, I'm sorry, but that isn't entirely coherent to me. I'm not omniscient, so as to be able to glean anything from some abstract editors who are said to "post hundreds of falsehoods about a sensitive subject" — would you be able to if you were me? Also, I was just reminded elsewhere that, per WP:JIMBO, only sanctions placed by the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to him, so your original appeal on his talk page was invalid from the outset. Again, I don't care about that. I care that you went on and on there in contravention of your topic ban for 2 weeks, even when it was clear that Jimbo was not responding. I'm sorry, but that is something which you're expected to be cognizant of. Above all else, to me it looks like that since your ban, pretty much all you've been doing has involved it in some form or another, often masquerading as an appeal. El_C 10:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: You're just repeating yourself without addressing my points. That's very common on Wikipedia but really not helpful. Your assumptions are wrong, btw.
 * a) The appeal on Jimbo's page was valid according to the policy pages because Arbcom made the decision not to accept my appeal request. Any Arbcom decision may be appealed to Jimbo. It was valid because the Arbcom decision was based on a mistake: they thought I was blocked instead of banned and said they don't deal with blocks. Besides, they were unaware of the provision here: . I've spelled this out already on Jimbo's page.
 * b) How can I appeal a topic ban without mentioning the topic? I've kept that to a bare minimum and I still do. No wonder you think I'm not coherent if I can't go into details.
 * c) Some abstract editor: That diff which you use as evidence for blocking me is clear about who and what I refer to.
 * d) Would I be able to: Yes, because I would ask for their evidence and if I found that it was all too difficult I would leave it alone. I certainly would not block someone before I had a good sense of what's going on.
 * e) Your exclusive focus on me, as if I was conducting a discussion on my own, ignoring the context and the wider implications of your actions, and cutting short a AN discussion about the validity of the topic ban, is all pretty weird, El_C. Have some respect for others, please. Saflieni (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, Saflieni, it's doubtful I'm gonna keep this back and fourth going (I know I already said that, but hopefully, this time it will stick), but a few corrections. First, your ban is a community ban, not one imposed by the Arbitration Committee. That they declined your ban appeal does not magically turn it into an Arbitration Committee action (who knows, maybe they simply declined it for not meeting the conditions stipulated by Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals).


 * But, again, doesn't really matter to me whether you were technically allowed to post an appeal on Jimbo's talk page or not. That isn't of much moment to me. As far as I'm concerned appeal anything to Jimbo, but do it once, with one coherent, substantive appeal (and if Jimbo responds, then follow up). You keep sidestepping the point that you actually went on and on there for 2 weeks, after already having filed your appeal there. As for your expectation that I, somehow, undertake a holistic investigation of the entire dispute, that does not strike me as reasonable proposition. Anyway, another editor who responded to your AN appeal showed that you've been violating your ban at Jimbo's talk page for a while. That prompted me to look into it and I found it to be so. That's all there is to it. Also, I feel like I've been respectful. Sorry you consider it otherwise. El_C 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: You keep going on about Jimbo and your claim that "I" went on and on after I posted my appeal there. But nobody told me that it's not allowed to respond to questions, red herrings and false accusations.
 * You suggest that I'm lying about the reasons provided to me by Arbcom. How is that respectful?
 * You didn't understand the text of the diff I provided as evidence in my appeal. Why don't you admit to that first?
 * The "another editor" you took your cue from, User JBL, is not neutral. I thought that AN appeals should exclude anyone who is or has been part of the dispute.
 * Be responsible. Refrain from issuing blocks and bans if you're not prepared to inform yourself properly. And at least allow other editors who may be interested in the underlying subject (if they exist) to investigate the falsehoods if you won't. Now you're just rewarding dishonesty. Saflieni (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even the decency to ping me while lying about me -- really quite shameful. (Not that the rest of your behavior led to any higher expectations.) --JBL (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was blocked for using the word 'lying', JBL. The difference is that I had a good reason for using it, while you aim to insult only. I have tried to have a dialogue with you, which you declined. If you have nothing positive to add, please stay away. Saflieni (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that you've been conferencing about me with the other trolls. You're a scientist, for God's sake. Start acting like one! Saflieni (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: Your "another editor", the one who accuses me of lying, was shopping for a block for two days before they finally saw the opportunity to push you into it: . And no, they did not have the (using their own words) "... decency to ping me while lying about me - really quite shameful." Such congregations have occurred before, during and after the ANIs too for instance. None of them gives a hoot about the quality of the relevant articles, though. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why they're all so afraid of an objective examination of the facts. That's the shortest way to resolve disputes but there's always an excuse to dodge that solution. Saflieni (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni, I have nothing further to add at this time. Unblock request instructions are noted on the block template. Please do not ping me again to this page. Thank you. El_C 22:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C: Listen, you closed my appeal after 23 minutes for no good reason, suggested on AN that my evidence was no good without leaving me an opportunity to correct that, and you insulted me several times on this page. There's no template to remedy such callous behavior. You'll have to fix that yourself. Saflieni (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Saflieni, I've asked you not to ping me to this page again, yet you still pinged me to this page, again. What gives? Anyway, please respect that. Otherwise, you are risking the revocation of your talk access for the duration of the block. Thanks again. El_C 02:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Block now indefinite, talk page and email access disabled
El_C 03:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Dus je hebt mijn emailadres gevonden--bravo. Ik ben niet geinteresseerd in wat je te zeggen hebt. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)