User talk:Philomathes2357

Welcome

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

May 2020

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

Important Notice

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

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

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

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

May 2020

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

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

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

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

Your edit at Hunter Biden laptop controversy was reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent questions, but without absolute answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why read encyclopedias?

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

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

Stop editwarring

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

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

Previous accounts?

What previous accounts have you used?

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

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

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

December 2022

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

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

Fred Hampton had his felony charge dropped, Duke did not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgot

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

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

WP:POINT / WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Guardian is an rs

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

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

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

RE: Duke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Howdy

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

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

Howdy

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

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

January 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left vs right in politics and history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absurdly long talk page posts

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

Reply

Three things:

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

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

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

If I'm' an "obvious POV-pusher", what is my POV? Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Note, I've created a thread on the talk page of Cliven Bundy to explain why "antigovernment" is the incorrect term here. I'd like to bring it to your attention and ask you to comment there, since you appear to disagree. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Forumshopping

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

Edit warring after being warned by several editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN/I notice

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

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

Politics

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

Indefinite block

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decline reason:

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

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You didn’t mention formal discussion at WP:ANEW so far as I can see but asserted that “ I will continue to remove it if it is re-inserted. In fact, the conduct of the editor who persistently re-introduced the content is questionable, in my view, and would warrant closer scrutiny by administrators than my own.” Doug Weller talk 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't we normally have an escalation path rather than going right to the nuclear option? Clearly this is a frustrated editor but are they actually a bad faith editor? Shouldn't things have started with topic bans or sorry blocks first? Philo, while I don't think an indef was the right answer, I do think you need to try to understand the issues with your actions (even if I don't agree with the response to those actions). I think two of the hardest parts of dealing with some topics is knowing when further actions aren't going persuade others but are starting to hurt your own cause. Also knowing how to avoid personalizing thing even if others inappropriately do it to you. Sit on this appeal for a day or more. Ask editors how you should have handled it, understand their answers then try again. Given that you appear to have a clean block log prior to today I would hope this will be seen as a good opportunity for some wp:ROPE. Springee (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. I looked at BLP, carefully, before I chose my course of action yesterday. It wasn't a course of action I decided to pursue frivolously. And while I can see why others would disagree, I really, truly, sincerely thought I was doing the right thing, and that I didn't really even have a choice: BLP-violative content "must be removed immediately without further discussion", and is explicitly immune from the three-revert rule, presumably because of situations like this one.

I do have autism and tend to take things very literally, so that may have been an issue here with my reading of BLP. But if someone had taken me aside and explained in a detailed manner, without name-calling or obvious falsehoods, how I might be misinterpreting the policy, I'd have embraced that. I'd still embrace that, but it's a moot point now that it's been made abundantly clear that I'm hated here. I'm obviously not a troll, I'm a borderline-obsessive autist and subject-matter expert who clearly wants to make Wikipedia better for our readers. I'm disappointed by this block, but with the blatant selective enforcement of policy on display here (the guy edit-warring with me and calling me a nazi incurred zero punishment), I'm wondering if Wikipedia is really the community I had hoped it was. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Philo...

You invoke me so here I am. As a sky-is-blue point of fact, would the subject of the article be OK with the State of Nevada doing whatever the Federal Government did, and submit willingly (if unhappily) to its authority? No, of course not. He'd find some reason or another, but he wouldn't. He actually is "anti-government". I don't know if he's an anarchist, but you don't have to go that far to be anti-government. No reasonable person can doubt this, and if you either actually do or say you do, you're not reasonable and thus not worth engaging.

Yes, BLP does require a good source for every negative or contestable statement, but the fact that he is anti-government changes our focus from "determining if he's anti-government" to "finding good sources to confirm the stone cold fact that he is anti-government".

Also, this is way different from the David Duke thing. The subject's attitude toward government generally (as well as toward the Federal Government particularly) is key to understanding the subject. Duke's case wasn't like that.

Also, there's a big difference between putting or not putting "felon" in an article lede, and between deciding whether to write "against government" or "against the national government". In the latter case, it's much more of a fine distinction and not terribly damaging to the subject to get it wrong. Yes of course we want to get it right, we want to get everything right, but we need to have a sense of scale here.

I suspect that you have some sympathy for the subject of the article. Do you? Be plain, man. I defended David Duke even tho I hate him, on the grounds of principle. Mark Steyn is on my watchlist. I hate him, but I watch the article to make sure he's treated with scrupulous fairness. That is the Wikipedia way. If you were to continue editing, I'd suggest that you start watching the articles of some people and things that you hate and make sure they are treated even-handedly. I think this would be an excellent exercise in growing your Wikipedia wings and getting a better angle on what we are trying to do here.

You could talk to User:Bishonen and take an oath to do this, and ask him to allow you more chance, invoking perhaps WP:ROPE. But he almost certainly won't, and I can't blame him. You can't make a leopard change his spots, and while you could make a 180 and reform, my reading of the whole situation is that that's very very unlikely and not worth bothering with. I'm confident that there are very many places, many websites and forums and whatnot, where your contributions would be valued. Go there, and godspeed. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with me in a nice way. While I did take guidance from your description of "BLP", I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me about any of my editorial decisions. This is going to be a long post (shocker, I know, a long post from me). Because I really, sincerely care about this on a deep level, and because there's a lot to cover.

As it concerns Cliven Bundy and the BLP matter

It's unclear to me what Bundy would do if the state and local jurisdictions had sole authority over the grazing rights matter. I do think that the distinction between Anti-Federalism, Posse Comitatus, and "antigovernment" is vast and significant, and, in the absence of any discussion of the first two more accurate and informative descriptors (both of which are discussed in RS), the negative and mostly uninformative label "antigovernment" is an example of cherry-picking. But the real issue here is that it is a contentious and unsourced claim on a BLP page. I don't mean to be rude here, but you asserting "the fact that he is antigovernment..." suggests that maybe you haven't delved as deep into the nuances here as I have - which I can't blame you for, political theory and political ideas are my educational background, my livelihood, my deepest passion, and basically my life.

It may well be a fact that some RS have described him thusly - but note that none of those RS were cited in the sentence in question, even when I suggested that adding one (when editors said they knew of "thousands") would address my BLP concern. Why didn't they just add one of the "thousands" of sources to the claim instead of calling me a nazi whitewasher?

With the David Duke thing, the "convicted felon" bit was factually "sky-is-blue" indisputable - whereas here, "antigovernment" is a label whose accuracy would definitely be debated by experts in the field, unless we really want to imply that anyone with any critique of government as it is currently structured is "antigovernment". So I felt like, contrary to what you suggest, I had a much firmer BLP leg to stand on here than I did at the Duke page. All of this could have been constructively debated on the talk page - once the BLP violative content was removed, we could have all compiled sources that attribute various labels to Bundy, and figured out the best, most nuanced and informative way to cite and present those views. We could have even included the "antigovernment" bit, once it was properly cited, as I'm not arguing at all that reliably-sourced material should be erased en masse. But instead, I was just called a "nazi" and a bad faith actor.

As it concerns my political sympathies and how they may motivate my edits

For the record, I don't have any particular sympathy for Cliven Bundy. I think he's kind of a goofball, and I don't think he handled his situation well at all. Another article I've focused on, the Grayzone, is a left-wing progressive news outlet that focuses on critiquing mainstream narratives about U.S. foreign policy - which is literally what I study for a living. I've also been editing at the Vice President of Venezuela's page, the pages of several post-WWII Marxist-Leninist orgs, the Al-Qaeda page, and others. None of these groups have a common ideological thread that would elicit my sympathy. Is it possible to be pro-David Duke, pro-Greek Marxism, pro-progressive American alt news, and pro-Al-Qaeda at the same time? No. The connecting thread between them all is NPOV issues and the dubious cherry-picking of negative value-laden labels. All this goes to show that my edits are in no way connected to my own POV or political prejudices.

I actually voted for Bernie Sanders twice, so that should tell you something about my politics. I don't like David Duke, Cliven Bundy, or any of these other characters. I think Duke's a loser and a bad actor, and Bundy's an undiplomatic brat. I just think that if you aren't willing to steelman the people you like the least, you're letting your POV guide you. So I actually go out of my way to seek out unfairly-written articles about people and ideas I'd be inclined to reject. I think you and I are on the same page about "the Wikipedia way", and I'd respectfully suggest that some of the folks objecting most virulently to my edits are not quite on that page.

As it concerns my conduct

The real serious issue here isn't that I'm "politically motivated" or only editing articles for which I have sympathy. The issue is that people don't like me. I can only speculate why - some of it is my occasionally pointy conduct, which I've tried to get under control. Like I said, I have autism, and while that's not an excuse, it is an explanation for why I sometimes focus obsessively on a topic, and why I get frustrated when it's clear that the people responding to me aren't 1/100th as engaged on the issue as I am. Some of it is, as much as I hate to say it, bad-faith POV pushers who get angry that I'm pushing "my POV", which is that *their* POV should stay the f*ck off contentious political articles on Wikipedia. But those aren't the major issue:

The major, proximate issue here is my conduct surrounding edit-warring. I agree that I could've handled this specific situation better. My only defense here is: I'm sorry if I violated a conduct policy, but I really, sincerely thought I was doing the right thing pursuant to BLP. I thought everyone reverting my edits were acting in questionable faith ("nazi", "whitewasher", refusing to talk about what BLP even says). Besides, why would there be an explicit BLP exemption to the three-revert rule if editors removing BLP-violative content are sanctioned for "edit warring"? If someone, like you, who hasn't been constantly shitting on me and questioning my motives and character, had pulled me aside and said "hey man, I think you're missing some nuances about BLP, let me show you some other relevant policy citations that would suggest that you're not standing on as firm of ground as you think you are" or "yes, you have a cognizable BLP argument here, and removing the material without further discussion was arguably very reasonable, but you should stop removing it, even if it's violative, and instead pursue courses of action X Y and Z"...I would have been very open to that. But when I get called a "nazi" for trying to do what I thought was the right thing, then I get banned, and the "nazi" and "whitewasher" namecallers & persistent violative content restorers skip away without so much as a verbal warning on their talk page...it does lead to me feeling like enforcement of conduct rules and norms here is arbitrary and is little more than a popularity contest.

I acknowledge that it may have been wise to put the brakes on removing the BLP-questionable content, even if it was indeed violative. I acknowledge that I do get frustrated sometimes and that I need to continue working on that. I made a commitment a couple months ago to try to only criticize content, not editors. I think I've done well at that, although everyone is human and everyone slips up sometimes, especially when other editors constantly call me a "nazi troll" and a bad actor with seeming impunity, which suggests that the conduct policies are selectively enforced. Beyond that, I don't know what else to say. You might hate me personally, but I'm pretty confident that I'm motivated by good-faith impulses, and my continued presence on Wikipedia would be a net-positive. I'm obsessively dedicated to improving Wikipedia to make it a more reliable and credible source of information about my area of expertise, and I think that I can channel that energy and enthusiasm in an extraordinarily productive manner if a few people would just be nice to me and make kind, well-meaning suggestions instead of blowing me off in a low-effort manner or accusing me of bad faith.

If there's anything else I should address, please let me know. But if all I have written above still suggests that a total and permanent ban from Wikipedia is necessary, I guess this just isn't the place I had hoped it was. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"anything else I should address": the bludgeoning and walls of text. How can the community convince you to stop, given that multiple warnings and a block have been insufficient? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't express what I needed to express without a lengthy post, but I did try to address the "walls of text" criticism by italicizing some of the main points and using bolding to create clear delineations between lines of thought. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your talk page originally said you were concerned about liberal bias on Wikipedia.[3] You removed that statement, and have started white washing articles on divisive figures. Your current user page says bias on Wikipedia is one of the biggest problems facing humanity... So you went to clean up David Duke's article? And the grayzone? And bundy cliven? The theme seems to be anti democracy activists. Throw in Al qaeda, which you object to calling extremist. Vizorblaze (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I did say that. Then I learned more, and saw that "liberal bias" is an imprecise and inaccurate term. The problem is a lot more complex than that and doesn't neatly track to "left/right, liberal/conservative" dichotomies. The Grayzone writers are progressives, for instance, and I've made edits to multiple Marxist-Leninist pages that I felt were biased. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is an example of you whitewashing yet another hate group on Wikipedia - [4]. Your interests align with those of nazis. I don't regret implying you are one, especially after reading your tweets. I think the ban should be expanded to include nonazis as a reason. Vizorblaze (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vizorblaze has been calling me a nazi for a while, has dedicated more than half of his total edits to attacking me, and is now trying to post links to sites that could out me IRL. But he still hasn't even received a verbal reprimand, sanction, or even been told to back off and chill? This is insanity. I have no desire to be a part of a project that would show preferential treatment towards someone like this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have suppressed the outing, only a small handful of Admins with my privileges can now see it. Doug Weller talk 22:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug, that's a very nice thing for you to do. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Although it was outing as posting your email address doesn't allow people to search for anything else, you did post your email address and declined my offer to remove it. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I warned him. But how do you justify your edit to The Spotlight which was clearly antisemetic? Doug Weller talk 13:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh man, I doubt you want to get into the weeds on that Doug. One time, an old friend and retired political consultant, who had a huge collection of writings on American politics, showed me a 2-foot stack of "The Spotlight" that he had. I devour everything I can get my hands on about politics. So I read them. All of them. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The core of the Spotlight's thesis is anti-globalism. They were one of the first outlets to substantively discuss the Bilderberg meetings. They did, sometimes, point out that a disproportionate number of prominent globalist activists are Jewish, which is an unfortunate and uncomfortable thing...If you want to use a negative label to summarize their views, I think "neo-Nazi" is probably a more precise term than merely "antisemitic". Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, the antisemitic comment didn’t describe The Spotlight but Liberty Lobby run by Willis Carto. So your analysis doesn’t relate to your edit. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, that was a long time ago and I dropped the stick pretty fast on that one, as it was clear nobody I was interacting with was very familiar with what the Spotlight actually says. My bad.

For what it's worth, which is probably nothing, I'd note that the actual Liberty Lobby article doesn't use "antisemitic" in Wikivoice, it attributes it, which I think is the appropriate way to handle the label generally, just like "neo-Nazi". Throwing around negative labels, even if they have some validity, in the way the Spotlight says "antisemitic Liberty Lobby" just seems wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia - it reads like we're brutally bludgeoning our readers over the head from the very first sentence, telling them "hey!! you're not supposed to like this! Got it?? This is BAD!! Do you understand how BAD this is an how much you should dislike it?"

So to be clear, you considered the magazine to be neo nazi in nature, read all of them, and THEN changed the article, with this knowledge, to downplay the racism? Vizorblaze (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's tacky and reads more like tabloid journalism than encyclopedic writing. Wikipedia is read and trusted by more people than any news outlet, so I think we have a real, serious duty to elevate our Wikivoice commentary beyond that of mere tabloid yellow journalism. That's one of my main contention with the use of contentious labels. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Grayzone is not "progressive" by any measure of the word. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:F017:7F9F:9B37:EC54 (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Every single editor and journalist there self-identifies thusly, but it really doesn't matter anymore. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BLP... I think there's a limit to what one can do in situations like this. I mean, BLP is a core policy, yes. But there are a lot of laws and rules and policies all over the world that are partly ignored. Often this is OK as it lubricates the functioning of the world.

In the David Duke thing, I was appalled, but I didn't remove the material. I usually say something like like "This material should absolutely be removed at once without argument per BLP, but I'm not going to do it because I don't want to get in a pissing match". Politics is the art of the possible. It's a political world. And fine, politics is how things get done, everywhere including here. You need to be a lot more aware of the politics here. I mean, have you accomplished what you wanted? No, you haven't. Because you're ignoring the reality of the politics, the human factor, in the issue.

I'll say "This material should absolutely be removed at once without argument per BLP, but I'm not going to do it because I don't want to get in a pissing match" but I will also continue to hammer on that point and to try to persuade others to respect BLP. But if I can't do it, I have to accept that. So do you.

If it's truly an emergency, that might be different. You do remove the material, and proactively go to the admin and editwar board and open a discussion and explain what you're doing and why. You go to the boards, you start WP:RFCs on the matter, you go to the WP:PUMP and Jimbo's talk page, and maybe the Foundation in uttermost need. But this isn't an emergency. "Against government generally" vs "against national government" is not an emergency. It is true that it needs to be sourced, but it is also true that you have to work within the confines of the situation. You didn't, and so not only is the material still there, you are not, and so now you can't even argue about it. This is

When you are fighting alone against a bunch of people, you need to ask yourself if maybe you are the one who is wrong. When you get blocked, you need to ask yourself if maybe you are the one who is wrong. And you were and are. This is a really hard thing to do, in life or here, but it is something we all need to learn to be able to do,. You need to be able to think, and say, "I've read your comment, and you know what? It convinced me that I was wrong and you are right". That is how we grow to become good Wikipedians.

Here, you need to totally be on board with saying (and believing) "I messed up. I relied too much on the written policy when it wasn't an emergency, and didn't take in account that what I wanted just wasn't going to happen, because nobody agreed with me and accept that. I now realize that, like it or not, that's how the Wikipedia works, and probably must. Consensus is very important here, and regardless of any rule, it has to be respected at a certain point. I didn't really grasp this, and I'm sorry, and I was wrong to edit war, and I won't do it again". In addition, you need to be able to say (and believe) "I have read the many arguments made against my actions, after having backed off from my (natural, human) response of getting my back up and into a defensive stance, and calmed down and looked at the situation coldly and rationally, and you know what? I was wrong, and the others were right". Because you were, man.

If you can't or won't do that, it doesn't mean you're not an excellent person. It just means you are not suited for working here. Start a podcast or something. Make a website. That sort of thing. Herostratus (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your points about the internal politics of Wikipedia are wise, and your comment is thoughtful and helpful. Thanks. Since you've been kind enough to talk to me about this in a reasoned manner, may I ask you one more question here?Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

OK, will do. I request an unblock because:

1) I have a clean block record and have never been sanctioned in any way

2) I'm a good-faith editor who believes at a deep, emotional level in the Wikipedia project

3) I've been borderline harassed by a determined group of editors accusing me of bad faith and a being a "nazi" while trying to share my social media accounts on public threads, which, while not an excuse, is an explanation for why I have occasionally adopted a defensive posture

4) I care, a LOT, about Wikipedia, and think there are a lot of ways I can contribute in a valuable and productive way

5) The proximate cause of my indefinite block was an edit-war, but I was removing BLP-violative content which was re-inserted by someone who called me a "nazi", and multiple other editors have acknowledged I made a reasonable case that the content was indeed violative

6) I have always tried to respect consensus by creating RFCs or noticeboard posts, including in this case

7) I'm autistic, and I know that I have a hard time getting along with others, but I've been sincerely trying my best to improve and have steadily improved throughout my time on Wikipedia

8) Even though removing BLP-violative content is not subject to the three-revert rule, I will swear to never exceed the three-revert rule, even if I'm removing unsourced violative content.

9) I'm willing to have a serious, back-and-forth conversation with an administrator about bludgeoning and how I can do better at avoiding it in the future.

Is that concise enough? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=OK, will do. I request an unblock because: 1) I have a clean block record and have never been sanctioned in any way 2) I'm a good-faith editor who believes at a deep, emotional level in the Wikipedia project 3) I've been borderline harassed by a determined group of editors accusing me of bad faith and a being a "nazi" while trying to share my social media accounts on public threads, which, while not an excuse, is an explanation for why I have occasionally adopted a defensive posture 4) I care, a LOT, about Wikipedia, and think there are a lot of ways I can contribute in a valuable and productive way 5) The proximate cause of my indefinite block was an edit-war, but I was removing BLP-violative content which was re-inserted by someone who called me a "nazi", and multiple other editors have acknowledged I made a reasonable case that the content was indeed violative 6) I have always tried to respect consensus by creating RFCs or noticeboard posts, including in this case 7) I'm autistic, and I know that I have a hard time getting along with others, but I've been sincerely trying my best to improve and have steadily improved throughout my time on Wikipedia 8) Even though removing BLP-violative content is not subject to the three-revert rule, I will swear to never exceed the three-revert rule, even if I'm removing unsourced violative content. 9) I'm willing to have a serious, back-and-forth conversation with an administrator about [[Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process|bludgeoning]] and how I can do better at avoiding it in the future. Is that concise enough? [[User:Philomathes2357|Philomathes2357]] ([[User talk:Philomathes2357#top|talk]]) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=OK, will do. I request an unblock because: 1) I have a clean block record and have never been sanctioned in any way 2) I'm a good-faith editor who believes at a deep, emotional level in the Wikipedia project 3) I've been borderline harassed by a determined group of editors accusing me of bad faith and a being a "nazi" while trying to share my social media accounts on public threads, which, while not an excuse, is an explanation for why I have occasionally adopted a defensive posture 4) I care, a LOT, about Wikipedia, and think there are a lot of ways I can contribute in a valuable and productive way 5) The proximate cause of my indefinite block was an edit-war, but I was removing BLP-violative content which was re-inserted by someone who called me a "nazi", and multiple other editors have acknowledged I made a reasonable case that the content was indeed violative 6) I have always tried to respect consensus by creating RFCs or noticeboard posts, including in this case 7) I'm autistic, and I know that I have a hard time getting along with others, but I've been sincerely trying my best to improve and have steadily improved throughout my time on Wikipedia 8) Even though removing BLP-violative content is not subject to the three-revert rule, I will swear to never exceed the three-revert rule, even if I'm removing unsourced violative content. 9) I'm willing to have a serious, back-and-forth conversation with an administrator about [[Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process|bludgeoning]] and how I can do better at avoiding it in the future. Is that concise enough? [[User:Philomathes2357|Philomathes2357]] ([[User talk:Philomathes2357#top|talk]]) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=OK, will do. I request an unblock because: 1) I have a clean block record and have never been sanctioned in any way 2) I'm a good-faith editor who believes at a deep, emotional level in the Wikipedia project 3) I've been borderline harassed by a determined group of editors accusing me of bad faith and a being a "nazi" while trying to share my social media accounts on public threads, which, while not an excuse, is an explanation for why I have occasionally adopted a defensive posture 4) I care, a LOT, about Wikipedia, and think there are a lot of ways I can contribute in a valuable and productive way 5) The proximate cause of my indefinite block was an edit-war, but I was removing BLP-violative content which was re-inserted by someone who called me a "nazi", and multiple other editors have acknowledged I made a reasonable case that the content was indeed violative 6) I have always tried to respect consensus by creating RFCs or noticeboard posts, including in this case 7) I'm autistic, and I know that I have a hard time getting along with others, but I've been sincerely trying my best to improve and have steadily improved throughout my time on Wikipedia 8) Even though removing BLP-violative content is not subject to the three-revert rule, I will swear to never exceed the three-revert rule, even if I'm removing unsourced violative content. 9) I'm willing to have a serious, back-and-forth conversation with an administrator about [[Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process|bludgeoning]] and how I can do better at avoiding it in the future. Is that concise enough? [[User:Philomathes2357|Philomathes2357]] ([[User talk:Philomathes2357#top|talk]]) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Uh.. what exactly are you doing, @Herostratus:? I formatted the second unblock request for Philomathes, and then you removed it? Was that a mistake? Philomates needs their unblock request live more than they need advice, I would say, so I have reverted you. Please restore your advice yourself if you wish, because I'm simply reverting you; I'm getting really tired of tinkering with this page. Bishonen | tålk 10:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: I've gone ahead and restored Herostratus's comment above this unblock request. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Locke Cole. That's not the chronologically correct place, but I suppose it doesn't much matter if it looks like Herostratus commented without having seen Philo's second unblock request (which he didn't). Never mind, it's good that you restored the comment. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC).

Philo, in addition to the above I would suggest offering a self imposed 1RR restriction for say 6 months. That should address the edit warring which was a big part of this problem. Yes, it means someone who is "wrong" can "win" by out reverting you. However, you may find that overall you will be more effective if you operate with that self imposed limit. It forces you to slow down and persuade others. Editors might still disagree with you in the end but they are far less likely to get frustrated in the process. You also might agree to try to limit your talk page replies only to those that directly address you. I've seen that you frequently reply to just about every editor who comments. I can sympathize with that but overall it doesn't generally help. So if you promise that you will only reply when editors directly reply to you I think that would address the core of the issues and hopefully will be enough for an admin to agree to give you some rope. Springee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think both of those are reasonable. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

One other one, don't comment on editors on article talk pages. For example it is OK to say, "that edit reads like a POV push in the article". Do not say "You are trying to POV push". If you think an editor is following you around, don't say it on the article talk pages. If you need to have these discussions do them on user talk pages or the proper notice boards. I thought it was wrong that editors were attacking you in the BLP-label discussion. However in looking at your edits I see places where you have done similar things. Again you might be right but it's not helpful overall. Springee (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I made a point to only focus on content, not editors, but when editors literally follow me from thread to thread attacking me, it does get old, and makes me wonder if the conduct enforcement around here is merely arbitrary. However, what you say is correct, and if I ever decide to edit Wikipedia again, I would redouble my commitment to only focus on bad content, not bad editors or POV-pushers, no matter how blatant they are. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't just focus on "bad content". Sometimes we make articles better not by removing bad content but by just cleaning things up or adding good content etc. I don't know enough to call any of the editors you were interacting with "bad editors". Rather they were editors who, like you, are frustrated. If someone really is a problem you should address it, just not on the article talk page. I think many of the issues you've raised are correct (see my The Grayzone comments) but your methods have been the problem. However, if you fix that I think you can be a productive editor. Springee (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. With the "Cliven Bundy" BLP dispute that ended up leading to this ban, rather than removing the violative content repeatedly and dismissing the people who called me "whitewasher" and "nazi" as POV trolls, I should have just re-written the sentence, put in the citations myself, and added the citations that describe Bundy's views accurately - Posse Comitatus and Anti-Federalist. That would have been way better than simply removing bad content. Thanks for making helpful suggestions instead of just yelling at me. If I get unbanned, and really, sincerely think an editor is a "problem", what's the proper channel to have those concerns addressed? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Please strike the (bracketted) troll comment. I've disagreed with several of those editors in the past and I suspect they think my POV on some subjects are less than neutral. I don't see any of them as trolls. I would hope, even when they completely disagree with me, they feel the same. POV pushing may be an issue but often it's still good faith. Trolling isn't a good faith behavior. Springee (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, there was really only one editor to whom I thought the label could be applied, so I'm removing the remark. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)