User talk:X1\/x

Summary of dispute by X1\
.....collapsetop|Too long, didn't read. More than 2000 words.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)...... To the Readers of this DRN posting: Please forgive me if I make mistakes in this process as I have never participated in a DRN posting.

There are multiple Users involved that the Filer left out upon filing. and it is an example of my concern about what the Filer is doing, upon which I will detail further.

Some others involved are: (also aka ),  (historical large contributor ),,  (article originator), , , , , , , , etc... It is notable the Filer included drive-by editor  (but not , who was in the same section, but has self-disclosed they have a conflict-of-interest of owning "Russian small cap stocks") and drive-by editor "FoxyGrampa75" (who was only a lead-in to "Onetwothreeip", who I will call 123IP), but not major historical contributors.

As has stated this is a red herring, which it is at best. This DRN posting appears to be an unhelpful timesuck SOAPBOX. On the surface, the behavior can call CIR into question. One can see some more of this from the section titles created at the article, such as "This article is very long", "Too much here", and "Finally getting on with fixing the article"; or this from User talk:Awilley. Notice the hyperbolic language and inherent illogic in the deletionists' discussion. I find the Filer 's Dispute overview description as clearly biased, and yet another example of the battleground mentality that has been exhibited. There are not two "sides". There are deletionists and those attempting to follow the spirit of BRD. This DRN posting itself appears to be abstractly similar to the GANG 123IP has attempted to create with not just JFG, but (who I'll call 4x2) and  (Slatersteven has overly avoided the ganging).  It is inappropriate for the Filer to characterize events in passive voice verbs regarding "discussions have flared up again" as the "flare-up" was by 123IP and JFG; both by mass deletions (examples can be given besides the ones below).

The scope is stable and long-standing. As some context here, there are by just one count many ongoing investigations into this topic,, and there are there are 12 that are unknown due to the still-redacted Mueller Report. This is not the time for the ignorant or premature deletions, as many things won't be clear for (as a guess) two years; so keep what the RSs tell us. While JFG has politely worded rhetoric here (and only recently at the Timeline Talk page, with the veneer of BRD), along with 123IPs' here (as pointed to), the deletionists' actions are very different at the article itself as is their lack of concern for editors that don't align with their agenda.

I call b.s on "I have attempted to structure the discussion" by the Filer, as what has happened is yet another mass deletion storm (some most recent examples: 27 April 2019, 28 April 2019, 29 April 2019 123IP, 29 April 2019 JFG, 30 April 2019, 2 May 2019, 3 May 2019 JFG, 3 May 2019 123IP; other past links can be given). Included in these is an example attempt to change the longstanding scope/lede without discussion (other examples can be given). JFG has previously deleted my explanatory notes from the Talk page (links can be given). The deletionists' behaviors are followed-up by IDHT; while mocking, downplaying, and trivializing RSs and spewing OR. Note: my characterizations are from observing the deletionists at my over 1 3/4 years contributing to the Timeline(s).

Why all this effort to aggressively delete? Why the rush to delete? JFG wanted information out of the Timeline, from which it went into the related Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum; then JFG promptly attempted to delete the entire page. For Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who is in the Mueller Report, JFG wanted to delete the article. Make no mistake, this is an epic event whose roots go back decades. It has been called called a "political pearl harbor","an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden (general)), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11 (see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 1). Would one want to arbitrarily limit the Timeline of the event that brought the U.S. into World War II? Only someone with a biased agenda would. At Wikipedia we go where the RSs lead us. Learn about the insidious tactics of the Internet Research Agency and related actors; with their goal being corrosive to democratic society. These experienced editors, deletionists, should very well understand what a "bold edit" in BRD is by now, but persistently behave as if they don't.

Why would someone ostensibly engage in BRD if they have not read the RSs involved? Or worse why would someone change the meaning of content on the wp article without having read the RSs involved? There are many reasons, some are to gather information, to get attention, to disrupt, to muddy, to confuse, and to attrit. Tendentious and tedious. The Filer has admitted not reading the RSs, yet still engaged in BRD. The Filer has changed the Timelines content without knowing the RS. Links can be provided.

While honest editors are attempting to follow this DRN posting's process, JFG and 123IP  have continued mass deletions; disingenuous to this DRN process.

Some of the notable items that were deleted (and since reverted) are the oft quoted Trump son's admitting (recorded) that a great deal of their money comes from Russia:

"Trump Jr., then an executive vice president of The Trump Organization, says, 'Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'" "Eric Trump tells author James Dodson, 'We don't rely on American banks [...] We have all the funding we need out of Russia', and says, 'We go there all the time'. In May 2017, Eric Trump calls this 'fabricated' and an example of why people distrust the media."

If I didn't know better, one might think this disingenuousness against the DRN process, this denialism by the deletionists, is an attempt to get themselves banned or even blocked from the Wikipedia community entirely. And I don't know better. Maybe some of the deletionists are meatpuppets attracted by rageaholism? I don't know. It would be likely, for the good for the Wikipedia community, given just one more violation of the spirit of BRD, and disrespect for the DRN process, not to say the disrespect for non-deletionist wp editors; that JFG and 123IP be, at least topic banned; 4x2 be at least temporarily banned (other deletionists could be added), and possibly Phmoreno banned for COI editing. Just an idea (and not just mine) to improve the culture and decrease the attrition forces disingenuously working-on Wikipedia. To send a positive message to beleaguered editors volunteering for the betterment of Wikipedia. Long live Wikipedia.

Thank you to the Readers, and particularly the Volunteers, of this my first DRN posting for hopefully bearing with me. This has been a rushed job, but I have attempted to organize it (cleaning-up some of the errors; as this posting was created in two chucks chunks over today and the WIP saved here yesterday); but I have, out of brevity here and my time resources, left-out much evidence of the deletionists/denialists negative disruptive behavior at the Timeline(s) but I will provide links, if given the time. While I would still call my posting here in this section a "Work in Progress", my guess is, this Summary of dispute by X1\ is a start, and there is more to do. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur and second opening "Summary of dispute".  X1\ (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To further upon a comment, see "2011" from his earlier Talk posting.  We go were where the RSs lead us. X1\ (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To further upon a comment; JFG Filed this DRN 21:19 May 18, then a JFG 07:09 May 19 mass deletion, which is BEFORE Volunteer 's comment at 17:37 May 19 (the first by a Volunteer).  X1\ (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 's note of lack of BRD spirit in 123IP at List of PlayStation 2 games is a curious example. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding 4x2's "flat earth theory" comment, per pointer, seems like fishing.
 * As some potential casual reading regarding behaviors that may be detrimental to content improvement, maybe sciencedaily.com Sep 25, 2018, livescience.com Sep 26, 2018, eurekalert.org Feb 25, 2019 (as an aside), nbcnews.com Aug 13, 2018, psychologytoday.com Oct 8, 2018, QZ.com May 24, 2018, ... just a light google search X1\ (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Additional statements by : While JFG throws around phrases such as "conduct issue", it is not, for me, personal.  My guess the gamble in this DRN is those who have not delved, sometimes rather deeply, into this topic and the edit histories of the Timelines and associated Talk pages will assume it is.  Sure it is an attempt at some kind of intimidation by JFG of me and other followers of Wikipedia's BRD spirit; but what matters is quality content driven by credible RSs.  X1\ (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)