User talk:TrueQuantum

{{Cquote|'''

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand.
'''

—Idiom |qcolor=Pink|width=60%|quotewidth=50px}}

Misunderstanding
I think we might have a misunderstanding, and I wanted to provide you with all the information (with appropriate references) so you can decide whether that affects your thinking at all.
 * There was one RfC in 2019 on this issue that succeeded.
 * There was one RfC in 2020 that failed.
 * There was one RfC that was closed without conclusion on June 3 due to a claim that opening it was invalid due to ARBPIA.
 * There was one RfC that was also immediately closed on June 12 due to a claim it was opened improperly.
 * The RfC you commented on tried to address the procedural objections above.

Okay, that's the information! Now you can do whatever you want. Cheers, Benevolent human (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Benevolent human! I will review all the links here that you have provided. Regardless of any disagreements on policy we may have, I hope you know that none of it is personal it is all intellectual. My presumption is that you are a good person acting in good faith. All the best to you. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

ARBPIA Question
Hi Firefangledfeathers I have a question about ARBPIA sanctions and wanted to move our discussion here rather than cluttering up the main discussion. Does the 500 edits threshold rule apply to talk page discussion on RfCs that were sent out to the general community to comment on? If that's the case, how does anyone who is unaware that the ARBPIA sanctions even exist avoid this situation? The RfC for Ilhan Omar was posted in the Biographies section for everyone to see. It makes sense that ARBPIA could be applied to editing the main article itself but to restrict those under 500 edits from even participating in the talk discussion seems highly unreasonable. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi TrueQuantum, I appreciate your instinct to move this discussion here. Yes, I strongly believe the ARBPIA sanction still applies. Community-wide notification is an inherent part of the RfC process, so Arbcom surely knew what they were doing when they restricted non-extended-confirmed accounts from participation in such discussions. I see your point about editors having no way of knowing; I think it's unfortunate but true that the only way editors find out is being notified after the fact, which is frustrating. One slightly helpful fact is that editors can't be sanctioned unless they are made aware of the sanctions in that area via a standardized talk page alert. I'm about to post such an alert below. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I got it and think I understand now. Yes, it's impossible to know what the rule is in this situation without first being notified. But I'm glad that there are no actual sanctions applied until the user is fully informed. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too. If you're interested, there's a list of topic areas covered by discretionary sanctions at Template:Ds/alert and info about how to alert other users. Note that most DS areas don't come with automatic 500/30 protection. Firefangledfeathers (talk)

I was very much not trying to come off as hostile, as I said on the talk page I largely agree with you. But the ARBPIA conflict topic area is one of our most heated and as such there have been additional rules imposed there. Sorry if I was overly brusque.  nableezy  - 19:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand the situation now. Hope you have a great day! TrueQuantum (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - Arab-Israeli conflict
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gold mining, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgam. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Regarding another editor. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - BLP
Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Technicality
Hi TrueQuantum, at Talk:Bill Cosby you have mentioned a few times—and argued against—the viewpoint that Cosby's release was based on a mere technicality. There may be people who believe that, but as far as I can tell no editors have mentioned it on the talk page or edited that viewpoint into the article. I mention it because I worry you are arguing against a straw man position; I find this to be detracting from the strength of your arguments, which I generally find to be high-quality (though I might disagree with a couple). I hope this message is helpful, and I won't be upset if you don't feel like responding. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Firefangledfeathers. Appreciate your comment and feedback. If the "technicality" aspect is a strawman then I will be sure to avoid that line of reasoning. I think we both just want to make Wikipedia a neutral and objective place that is insulated from the wild swings of public opinion and subjective arguments so common everywhere else. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sex
Hi TrueQuantum, sorry to be popping up so often at your user talk page! I found part of your recent post at Talk:Sex to be uncivil and likely to distract from your other points. Describing recent editors of the article and talk page (including, possibly, me) as activists is (a) not true, (b) not civil, and (c) not appropriately done at the talk page. If you have concerns about an editors conduct, you should post at their user talk page (as I am doing now), and escalate to other conduct dispute venues if needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way was it uncivil? Did you see the lengthy discussion on the talk page about whether biological sex is binary or is a spectrum? I genuinely believe that to be a type of warring activism that has no place on Wikipedia. I never called out any editors in particular and wanted to remind us all that we should stick to the objective facts not opinion. I never resorted to name calling or anything else. I don't appreciate the accusation of being uncivil when I have made my comments in good faith for the good of the community and encouraged everyone to adhere to our principles. Anyway, I see that you have left a talk page comment on PlantSurfer. I think I was just miffed for being accused of being a troll when I have only been trying to positively contribute here. I think you are just trying to mediate but still, I really don't think I was being uncivil. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will deny tat some of do indeed have our own biases regarding that topic. But none of us are activists. A majority of us have been sticking to what the sources hav to say on the subject. I do your comment was interesting tho.
 * I guess there is some bias and activism regarding on whether it is binary or a spectrum. And you could say there are some issues with both arguments.CycoMa (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I did see the lengthy discussion; I was involved. My read on it is that it was mostly over the reliability of sources and the best way to summarize what the reliable sources say. I do think other editors and I are coming into that discussion with bias, but describing other editors as activists is the part I believe to be uncivil. The number of involved editors was small enough that your not mentioning anyone by name doesn't help much; we all are likely to interpret that statement as applying to us. I believe AGF would require assuming that an editor is here to improve the encyclopedia, and not to further an activist agenda, unless there's persuasive evidence to the contrary. If I had such evidence, I would talk to the user and possibly seek admin attention. Starting a talk page discussion with that accusation meant that other editors, while partially addressing your points about the article, also had to respond to your assumptions about their motives. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Partial block
You have been indefinitely blocked from Zina Bash and its related talkpage per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1035370534#Repeated_WP:BLP_violations_in_the_Zina_Bash_article. this discussion]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
 * I am quite frankly dismayed that you have decided to censor me and apply a scarlet letter on me while willfully ignoring the actions of AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika who were abusively behaving as bullies against me and Attic Salt. I am heartbroken that Attic Salt has decided to leave Wikipedia and I am contemplating doing the same. But before I go, I want you to reflect upon your actions as an administrator because I am highly concerned that you use your position of power to silence others and cavalierly use your sanctions as a tool of censorship. I will read the guidelines for the appeal process and study how to properly request one because I want other administrators to weigh in here. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Some advice about how to deal with ANI and with being blocked
Hi TrueQuantum, I just wanted to give you some advice about how to deal with ANI and with being blocked.


 * First of all, there really is no cabal. It's an impression that a lot of new Wikipedia users get, but admins and experienced editors really do not conspire to act in a certain way or to target specific users. Given the fact that all edits are logged and open to review by anyone at anytime, such a thing would be plainly impossible: all communications between editors can be traced very easily, and when they actually do coordinate in an unfair way (e.g., by canvassing), it is usually quite easy to detect and prove with diffs. Rather, admins and experienced editors are united by the fact that they are deeply familiar not only with Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, but also with how they are usually interpreted and applied in practice. They may not know each other, even never have interacted, disagree deeply on a lot of issues, and still all come down on a user with the very same judgment. If that happens, it's better to just listen to what they're saying than to suspect them of conspiring against you.


 * Second, Wikipedia as a project is strongly opposed to censorship, and any claims by users of being censored are downright unrealistic. There are various forms of bias that are perpetuated by our content policies (e.g., those sources which we qualify as reliable, like academia or certain news media, have all kinds of known biases which we necessarily adopt by adopting those sources) and by the socio-economic background of our editor base (see systemic bias), but this bias is structural in nature and does not generally take the form of targeting individual editors. For these reasons, claims by individual editors of being censored are strongly frowned upon, especially since in the great majority of cases such claims are made by editors who are somehow violating policy and who are refusing to acknowledge this.


 * Which brings me to my third point: the most efficient way to get out of an ANI situation, as well as out of a block, is to be self-reflective. All you need to do is reflect on your own behavior, acknowledge where you may have been wrong, and show an understanding of how you will be able to avoid making the same mistake in the future. Any wrong which you may have been done by others should be entirely and utterly ignored. Other editors can and will step in to point out these wrongs done by others, and even to take action if needed, but you should only comment on what you did wrong, however slight or however big. This is because in such a situation, the community is interested in only thing, i.e. whether you can recognize your mistakes and whether you are able to correct them. If you were falsely accused or mistreated in some other way, they will probably discover this for themselves, but they don't want to hear that from you. All they want from you is a perspective on your own behavior, which may of course include a defense against allegations, but which should always also include at least some self-criticism, and nothing about the behavior of others.

I believe that from our interactions yesterday you have already gained an idea about the mistakes you made in this case (with regard to the Zina Bash article). My advice is to post a new comment where you strike (add before and after) your previous comment about censorship and about the bullying by others, acknowledge your own mistakes, briefly explain what was wrong and why, and state how you're confident that it will not happen again.

Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Every system, no matter how well intentioned, is susceptible to censorship and degradation of the democratic principles that it was founded upon and claims to uphold. This happens all the time as evidenced by many systems of governance throughout human history. Fanatical defense that Wikipedia, literally a community of anonymous editors, can never do any wrong and that "any claims by users of being censored are downright unrealistic" is not a strong argument here. Even when it comes to our court system, we can recognize that a trial judge and a jury of our peers can sometimes get things wrong and render unjust rulings. That's why we have an appeal system. Are you saying that two or three editors on Wikipedia coming to an agreement on sanctions or blocks are never wrong and that my opinion that these sanctions levied upon me were patently unfair are not valid? Am I to apologize for defending my rights and advocating for my stances here? Should I be subject to further sanctions simply because I don't acknowledge this? I hope you can see how scary this is for a community that claims to value open thought and that claims to welcome new editors. Demanding that I be self-reflective that I deserve this block and should apologize for complaining about it is very chilling to me. TrueQuantum (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not and do not claim that when three experienced Wikipedians agree on something, they never are wrong. I do claim that they are not out to censor anyone, and that the open nature of Wikipedia (literally every edit that has been made here the last twenty years can be reviewed by you right now, excepting those that were deleted for copyright violations or other legally binding stuff) makes it very hard for anyone to conspire to do anything. It is extremely transparent. I also do claim that complaining about censorship and unfair treatment by others invariably is the first line of attack for anyone who is violating our policies, and that, if only for that reason, it never helps anyone's case to do so. I'm not saying you should apologize for that, just to retract it and focus on something else. That is just very solid advice, and though I spent a lot of time on it and would love you to follow it, you are free to ignore it. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, True Quantum. I saw your message at Bishonen's talk page, and responded to you there. I think Apaugasma did a great job of summarizing the best approach for you, given the current situation. Based on your response to them, I can see that you're not persuaded, and I wanted to see if I could help. Sometimes, an analogy can clarify things. Let's think about sport referees for a minute. Think, for a moment, about a referee in a top FIFA or Premier League match warning a player with a yellow card, or removing them with a red card. Or, on the other side of the pond, an umpire ejecting a player from a baseball game. In either case, the action itself (warning, ejection) is normally carried out by a lone official. Later, depending how serious the infraction is, a different official or even a committee can add fines, suspensions for one or more games, or in especially egregious situations, a season-long suspension or even a lifetime ban from the sport (Tony Kay, Pete Rose).
 * An official may simply verbally warn a player during a game, or can eject them. Both are part of their job description. Such officials are chosen because of their impartiality and their deep knowledge of the rules and how to enforce them fairly. The best outcome for a player who has been warned or sanctioned, is simply to walk away quietly, determined to put it behind them and start afresh, hopefully with a better understanding of the rules, which inevitably have grey areas; and of how the officials enforce them, which inevitably are fallible because human evaluations and judgments are involved.
 * Very rarely, an official's sanction of a player might be overturned upon later review. But the point is, that no matter how much a player might disagree with a sanction applied by an official, although respectful disagreement might be taken on board up to a point, or influence a later review, contentious disagreement or imputing any motive to a referee other than their upholding the best interests of the sport, is doomed and will likely redound negatively upon the player, possibly including further fines or suspensions if it doesn't stop after a first, initial emotional outburst, perhaps understandable in the passion of the moment. But their are limits.
 * This analogy is not entirely unlike your present situation. You've received a kind of yellow card. Your best approach now is to graciously sit it out, go work on other articles, show what a great player you are, so the partial ban will be lifted sometime in the future after you show what a great team player you are, and how your understanding of the rules has deepened. A little bit of respectful disagreement or idiosyncractic interpretation of rules that referees can recite in their sleep, such as you initially engaged in at ANI, is okay; maybe an outburst or two about the referees being out to control or sanction young star players can be (and have been) tolerated due to your inexperience and the passions of the moment. But at some point, whether you like the decision or not, you have to accept that the admins around here are not out to get you, but to protect the encyclopedia. They have no particular agenda or animus against you, and are just doing their job, like any impartial sports official. (In the case of Bishonen in particular, by pure chance you ran into a referee who is trusted to officiate at FIFA World Cup matches, and just happened to be refereeing the third-tier match you were playing in that day.) Other admins stand behind them, who like FIFA or MLB review boards, are prepared to hand out increasingly restrictive or lengthy sanctions, also impartially, and with the strength of numbers, for those players who become injurious to the encyclopedia and won't stop doing so.  Assumption of good faith is a core Wikipedia principle, and in this case (among other things) it means that you should assume that admins have nothing against you personally, and aren't acting any differently than they would with anybody else. (Actually, they are: they're giving you more leeway than they would with a more experienced user; trust me on this.)  You get a certain amount of leeway here on your Talk page to vent, more so than you would at a board like ANI, but forbearance isn't infinite.
 * At this point, you kind of have to decide how you want to proceed. Be the player who maybe balls their fists at the yellow card and scowls at the official just once in the heat of the moment, if you want (you've done that), but then lets it go, and goes out with a smile and renewed resolve and shows everybody what a great player they are, and how they avoid the same pitfall in the future. Don't be the player who won't let go, determined to show how the referee was wrong wrong wrong and the yellow card was unjustified and who thinks the referees are out to get them. This will just get in the way of your becoming a better player with a deeper command of the rules, and risks developing into a grudge match between yourself and officials which could end up either in your stalking off the pitch in disgust and railing at the unfairness of it all and what crappy rules this sport has anyway, or getting suspended or removed from the game entirely if you're completely unable to play ball with others by the same rules everyone else follows and just keep doing the same thing over and over after numerous warnings or suspensions.
 * Well, no analogy is perfect, and I'm well aware of the ways this one isn't. But my intention was to give you another way of seeing what's going on here, and a glimpse of a possible fork in the road ahead for you. I think you totally have the ability to become a great editor, or it could go a different way entirely. That choice is entirely within your grasp and control. If you enjoy editing here, and hope to have a long and enjoyable time as an editor, I think you know what to do. I hope this has helped you see how to achieve your goals here. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)