User talk:Philomathes2357

Archive 1

Just checking to make sure you understand what a topic ban means

It's basically simple. You obviously can't edit related articles (broadly construed) and you cannot discuss them anywhere. If you aren't sure if an article is related, just avoid it. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Bishonen laid things out very clearly, and if I have any hesitations or doubts, I'll go to them. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

RE: Duke

I wanted to thank you for bringing that BLP topic to editors attention via RfC. It has been resolved in small part thanks to your work. Obviously I see you have been topic banned so you are unable to comment further. This is for the best. I hope you learn a valuable lesson. Wikipedia moves slowly and sometimes that can be frustrating. Sometimes you may disagree with the consensus or the consensus might be wrong, but you must respect it. Happy editing. Nemov (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nemov for your nice message. Yes, I've been topic-banned, but I'm confident that once it's expired I'll be able to contribute in a much more effective and collaborative manner. Glad the RFC got resolved. Hope to interact with you more in the future, you're a nice person. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: NPOV

Hi, I want to apologize if I've caused any offense or difficulty for you, and you've identified that you are neuroatypical and therefore I know maybe we might have some difficulty communicating. I respect that. But I do want to point out that when you go to a a talk page of a major policy or noticeboard and start talking policy and possible changes to policy, that would have significant cascading effects on the landscape of coverage on Wikipedia, that is going to encounter some opposition. And furthermore it's not a shield or some form of protection that you have been identified with a diagnosis - I respect that this may make things difficult, so I advise you to cease attempting to change or influence Wikipedia policy according to these political lines. Because you will encounter opposition. You were also previously topic banned for 6 months. I understand this may have recently expired. If you are going to go on a WP:RGW crusade to change contentious label policy or NPOV fact/opinion policy along right-wing political lines, we'll have no choice but to seek another topic ban to deal with that disruption. I am just a Wikipedia volunteer editor, not an admin and with no special powers. But I will do what I can to oppose your crusade so I advise you abandon it. Thanks Andre🚐 21:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As you've identified - you're just a volunteer editor, not an admin with special powers. Please do not try to unilaterally shut down discussion and threaten to try to get me banned, simply because you disagree with me. As you can see, several editors, including David Epstein, Masem, WhatamIdoing, and North8000 have found my thread worthy of serious engagement. By insulting me and trying to close the discussion, you are also insulting them. You don't just get to decide that, since you don't find the conversation worth your time, the conversation doesn't get to take place. Your conduct towards me, dating back months and months, has been uniformly snarky, rude, and lacking in nuance and substance. While I appreciate you acknowledging that your behavior could easily be construed as offensive, I'm going to respectfully ask that we not have contact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum - I just noticed your comment "if you are going to go on a crusade...along right-wing political lines". Not only is that a simplistic and crude remark, it's a direct accusation of bad faith on my part. I resent that. Again - do not contact me in the future, or I'll have to pursue a two-way interaction ban. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Hi. Philomathes. With some hesitation, and after several more or less apologetic statements from you (Special:Diff/1170459250Special:Diff/1170456965), I have decided not to block you for this, even though I find it fairly outrageous. Any more of the same and I will block. Please do not respond, since you have put yourself under a self-imposed 48-hour ban, but please do think about it. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC).

Sorry to see

Sorry to see you apparently didn't mean anything by your so-called "voluntary 48-hour ban from Wikipedia" — it was just talk. Noted. Bishonen | tålk 11:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC).

Haha, that made me laugh. You've got to admit, that's a little bit over the top Bishonen. The context of my remark was that I was stepping away from the contentious discussions. I think that was clear. No reasonable editor would object to the -2 worth of WikiGnoming that I did. I've been WikiGnoming for 15 years, I do it automatically without thinking about it. If you do object, the edits can be reverted and discussed on the respective talk pages. As for the contentious discussions, I've still refrained from participating in those, even though it's been more than 48 hours, so I'm not sure what the good-faith objection is here.

Can you show equal, or at least remotely comparable concern for this blatantly suspicious account that was created for the sole purpose of harassing me? It's been brought to multiple administrators' attention - the fact that nothing has been done is a conscious, deliberate choice.

This isn't the first time, this one was finally banned by an uninvolved administrator, but multiple admins were aware that the sockpuppet account called me an "anti-semite", a "Nazi", and doxxed me, and made the affirmative choice to take no action. It seems like sockpuppetry is permitted, and thereby promoted, when the socks are targeting an editor that has been labeled "right-wing". Can you put yourself in my shoes and see why this would be discouraging, and lead to frustration? Philomathes2357 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 I see Vizorblade calling User:Springee a Nazi, which is absolutely ridiculous. Pretty clear that Vizorblade was clueless, although that sort of thing led to his block. And the doxing which I suppressed so even Admins can't see it. It does seem very likely that he was here just to attack you. I would have blocked if he tried doxing again, but at that point it wasn't clear to me what was going on. He was blocked for 72 hours 3 days after he started editing, He didn't edit again and was finally CU blocked. So he edited for only 3 days and as soon as he was determined to be a sock permanently blocked. I'd say that was pretty fast.

Please don't think that just because a probable sock hasn't been blocked yet nothing is being done. That's not the case. But being suspicious isn't enough. If the language were the same, ok. But it's not. I'm still looking into it. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357 And they are blocked. I was able to provide enough information to help confirm they were a sock. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Now I know that if you offer a "voluntary ban from Wikipedia", it means only "I won't do anything contentious (as defined by myself)". You think that was clear?? It was not. I was naive, I suppose — I was just considering blocking you for a few days, for your incessant bludgeoning and for stuff like this, but decided against it because you wrote (on my page, no less) an apologetic post where you undertook to ban yourself for 48 hours, which I took seriously. Humorless of me, yes, and I suppose I deserve getting your finest whataboutism for it. Anyway, next time I'll know better. Bishonen | tålk 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC).

@Doug Weller- Duly noted. Point taken and appreciated, thank you. And I see you have banned them - I appreciate the matter being investigated. Is there any word on *who* might be creating these sockpuppet accounts? Clearly, it's someone who's very familiar with Wikipedia, and probably someone who's publicly expressed dislike for me and the points I raise under their main username.

@Bishonen - I'm genuinely disturbed by this and am having a hard time understanding why you are trying to imply bad faith on my part for (-2) worth of grammatical and sentence structure cleanup that I undertook reflexively without a second thought, as I have done on various accounts and IPs for well over 15 years! I'm also having a hard time understanding how your remarks can be interpreted in good faith, although I'm trying to be empathetic. They seem much more like the product of a personal dislike for me than the product of a genuine concern for improving Wikipedia. If I instantly started editing the NPOV page after saying that I was stepping back, that's one thing, but adding a missing comma? Come on, ma'am. That's absurd.

I thought that assuming bad faith was a serious conduct violation worthy of reprimand, and I've been making a sincere effort to not do it, even when blatant AGF violations are flying my way from all directions, and even when I have good reason to believe that I'm having fake debates with sockpuppets and meatpuppets. That's why I stepped away in the first place - so that I didn't feel forced to respond to repeated, in-my-face AGF violations with an AGF violation of my own. However, I have never seen someone reprimanded for accusing me of bad faith. Ever. Not once. No matter how blatant. It's discouraging and frustrating beyond belief. If I didn't have such genuine concern for the direction the Wikipedia project has been taken in recent years, I'd have walked away from this long ago, because it's not fun.

I suppose I technically could have signed out and done that (-2) worth of work with an IP, but if you had found out about that, I'd be getting a farcical lecture about "ban evasion". I could have also knowingly left the articles in a sub-par state, but that wouldn't be right. I've been doing this sort of thing since I was literally a little boy, so after 15+ years of conditioning myself to make grammatical improvements as I notice them, it didn't even occur to me to ignore the issues. I never dreamed that someone would, in good faith, object.

I thought I was doing the right thing by stepping away from an argument with a (now-proven) sockpuppet. I thought I was doing the right thing by adding a missing comma to an article. But somehow, it gets turned into me getting accused, with impunity, of bad faith. Oh well, I'm not surprised. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban is a topic ban, even if self-imposed. Your correction could have and should have waited and if I had a self-imposed topic ban I’d avoid looking at anything relevant. As for the doxing, that’s why editors shouldn’t put personally identifiable details anywhere. There is very little chance an editor who searched for you using your email, such an editor should just be referred to WP:Outing with a warning not to do it again. Doug Weller talk 06:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Grayzone, you may be blocked from editing. WP:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point"

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Softlemonades (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not forums for general complaints about our policies

Are you not aware that talk pages are only for discussions of that specific article? Not the subject, not Wikipedia in general. You restored what was a disruptive edit here which said "For those that aren't aware: "reliable sources" means western propaganda and non reliable sources means anything else.". Note that you now "own", ie are responsible, for that still being on the talk page. Your edit summary included this: " the comment you removed is a perfectly legitimate expression of the frustration many editors have with this page. You should not police the talk page for comments that dissent from what you would like the "consensus" to be." But the edit wasn't about the page, and it clearly does not reflect consensus. And of course it shows a lack of good faith. It also appears that you share the editor's opinion that the only reliable sources are "Western propaganda". If you have any questions still about what isn't acceptable on an article talk page (but is probably ok on a user's talk page, let me know. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in Doug. I've given this some thought. For what it's worth, here's my take on the situation:

Background

There is a lot of frustration with the Grayzone article, and not just from me. Interestingly, Larry Sanger recently mentioned the Grayzone article by name as one of the worst examples of political bias on Wikipedia. I think this would be pretty obvious to most readers. Actually, it's unquestionably and self-evidently biased - the only suggestion that it's not biased from an NPOV perspective is predicated on some fairly ornate post-hoc Wikilawyering, which I have studied carefully and find very dubious. Many, many, many editors have expressed their frustration with the POV issues of the article, but unfortunately for them, they are regular people who read Wikipedia, not wikilaywers, so they've been treated very rudely and chased away.

The comment

Part of improving the article, in my view, is smoking out what, exactly, these POV issues are, and why they exist. The comment about "western propaganda", while it's a birds-eye-view of the problem and not an immediately actionable observation, is directly relevant to the conversation. Some of the politically-charged claims made in Wikivoice at the Grayzone are made by outlets known to be bankrolled by the US State Department, and this deserves more scrutiny.

Note that I did not reply to or acknowledge the comment in question, as any further commentary beyond the one-sentence point made by the commenter would have been too broad and tangential for the talk page. He very briefly made his thoughts known - noted - and the discussion moved on. I simply felt that the person who removed the comment took excessive liberties in doing so, especially since they're a emotionally invested and passionately involved participant on the other "side" of the discussion.

I appreciate your input and will make a continual effort to make my talk page comments as relevant, specific, and actionable as possible. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes, thank you for your commitment to improving the quality of your input. I've been following the discussions at the Grayzone article and would also ask that you reduce the quantity as well: You've been leaving extremely long comments, which I understand is something you were warned about in the past. Please also listen to the advice that Doug Weller and others have given. I understand that you have strong opinions about how Wikipedia should be written, based in part on your knowledge of epistemology. However, even subject matter experts must defer to reliable sources when editing here. I think that your efforts to second-guess the sources and pursue truth, rather than verifiability, is the root of this conflict and frustration with other editors. I hope that you will take the time to learn more about how Wikipedia works in order to avoid further misunderstandings. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, @Dlthewave. I take your comments in good faith - certainly, I always have a lot to learn. You are correct about my excessive comment length. I have been consciously trying to get better at this. When I feel that there is much to say, I have also been trying to mitigate the problem indirectly by limiting the frequency of my posts on any one given talk page.

I do, however, want to respectfully push back on your assumption that I have a misunderstanding of verifiability, or some other policy, that has led me down a tangential road. I think the misunderstandings re:the Grayzone have been on multiple sides, not just mine. I think I can summarize it here more easily than on the article's talk page.

I want to be extremely clear with you - I'm as focused on verifiability as any other editor, which is why I said that absolutely none of the sources should be removed. None of them. I'm very much aware that verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia - it has to be! If you can't verify the "truth", it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and if you can verify something that's not "true", it may still be worth documenting as something that verifiably exists as an idea or phenomenon. An encyclopedia predicated on "truth" without that truth being nested within "verifiability" would end up looking something like Conservapedia, which is neither true nor reliable. I understand.

The main source of disagreement is that there's an assumed argument, which has not yet been convincingly made, which goes:

A)"these claims are verifiably published by a generally reliable source"

necessarily leads to

B)"these claims should, or must be stated in Wikivoice".

I've been trying to get someone to make the argument that A leads to B, instead of flippantly linking to RS and V and saying "shut up, we don't dabble in that philosophy stuff around here we just repeat what the sources say".

I've read V, and NPOV, and RS, and BLP, and NOR, and all the other relevant policies. Word for word. Multiple times. Carefully. I'm not a dummy, and I didn't decide to focus on this because of a random, ill-informed impulse.

Nowhere does it say or imply "repeat what the preponderance of news articles say, in Wikivoice, no matter what".

My contention is "given that these claims are of an inflammatory/derogatory nature, and are individually either blatantly opinionated, not disprovable, or merely asserted by the sources with no reference to evidence, they must be attributed, but, as they are verifiable, they should not be removed altogether".

My initial example of "far left" is, I see, not the best, for a couple of reasons. A better example would be "they are known for false or misleading reporting". It has only a single source, which does not provide evidence or examples of false or misleading reporting - it merely asserts it. That does not belong in Wikivoice. That's a violation of NPOV, DUE, and BLPGROUP, all in one short sentence.

The concept of truth does come into play, to a limited degree, when handling NPOV, as one must be able to distinguish between a "fact" and an "opinion" to apply NPOV correctly, and the colloquial concept of "fact" is nested within the concept of "truth". So I reject the notion that "we don't dabble in epistemology and truth", as a previous editor suggested. You darn well better be "dabbling" in truth and thinking these things through carefully if you want to edit Wikipedia responsibly. But in terms of trying to write "the Truth" about politics, or anything, on Wikipedia, a la Conservapedia or RationalWiki - that's silly, as I acknowledged above.

However, I vehemently disagree with the interpretation of V which suggests "verifiability is truth". I think a lot of the pushback I've received is from those who've confused "verifiability, not truth" and "verifiability is truth" (which is most definitively is not).

Hopefully that somewhat clarifies my position and demonstrates why suggestions that I "read V" feel like a strawman of my position. Thanks again for reaching out. Regardless of if you decide to engage further, I do appreciate it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"The main source of disagreement is that there's an assumed argument, which has not yet been convincingly made, which goes A)"these claims are verifiably published by a generally reliable source"necessarily leads to B)"these claims should, or must be stated in Wikivoice"; "Nowhere does it say or imply "repeat what the preponderance of news articles say, in Wikivoice, no matter what" Well, WP:NPOV does require us to include all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Neutrality means that we include these in proportion to their prominence, without regard for our own beliefs, opinions or analysis. We generally don't get to say that a reliable source is wrong, and we do say it in Wikivoice if the source says it in its own voice as a statement of fact. And when it comes to verifiability, yes, being published in a reliable source is sufficient - We don't require sources to explain their reasoning or provide references. –dlthewave ☎ 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

My only comment is that I’m surprised you take Sanger seriously. Most right wingers say the same thing. He’s boughtinto various conspiracy theories, eg Covid vaccines aren’t vaccines, they make things worse, an anti-masker, tweeted links to the Epoch Times and Qanon, has spread nonsense about Trump and election fraud, thinks it might really have been Antifa who were behind January 6th, thinks trans people are mentally I’ll, the list goes on. He seems to have become a garden variety right winger with an obsession about Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really a "follower" of his. I have only read Sanger's academic work, and his essays about Wikipedia. I haven't read any of his writings on modern American politics, so what you say is news to me. But if his thoughts are as simple-minded as you portray them, I'm sure I'd find plenty to disagree with.

I take him seriously because I believe him to be a serious, grown-up person. I have infinitely more respect for someone like Larry Sanger, who puts serious thought into the conclusions he draws and thinks, than someone who puffs out their chest and, with a confident and condescending attitude, mindlessly regurgitates things that were fed to them. I'm interested in being made to think, not being told what to think. I don't really care about the opinions of any of the public figures I pay attention to - I care about studying the process by which they reached those conclusions.

Also, he has a PhD in epistemology - he wrote a very interesting thesis which is worth reading if you have the time - and he's deeply studied the nature of human knowledge and belief. If I were to study his comments on any of the topics you mentioned above, I suspect I'd find that his views are broadly conservative/libertarian, but nuanced, carefully-reasoned, and vastly more coherent than what you've presented. What you've written about Sanger has the tone of a MAGA devotee writing about Bernie Sanders and how CrAzY he is, not the tone of someone who's actually inquired into Sanger's way of thinking about the world. Maybe not - sometimes people are right about some things and seriously off the mark in other areas. I, frankly, don't give enough of a damn about Larry Sanger to listen to his political opinions.

The fact that he mentioned the Grayzone, a "far left" outlet, as a particularly egregious article, is further evidence that his critiques are much more carefully considered than a "garden variety right winger". Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Grayzone, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing RS Softlemonades (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed that the article was cited in the body as well, so I did not realize it was being removed entirely. Surely, it would fit in the "reception" section, but it definitely does not belong in Wikivoice in the lede. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Grayzone. 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. Your Failure or refusal to "get the point" is edit warring. If you continue it may be reported Softlemonades (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

False. I've made edits to the page, each one tailored to the critiques of the previous edit. I didn't reinstate my previous edit, I listened to your feedback and incorporated it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I will say again. Your Failure or refusal to "get the point" is edit warring. Softlemonades (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The length of your comments - some good faith advice

Hello Philomathes,

I see other editors have noticed that your comments are often very long. You're clearly a bright person who feels that they have important things to say. That is great. The essay-sized comments you have left on The Grayzone and other pages? I have to be honest: not so great.

I want you to consider this: if your comments were half their current length, I bet you would enjoy twice the support for your positions. Most editors have jobs, families, and busy lives, and we have to prioritize what we watch, read, and write on the internet. Many will see your carefully considered but excessively verbose comments and think "nope, I have 30 minutes to spend on Wikipedia, and I'm not wasting it all by going down that rabbit hole". Sometimes, these editors will reject your position on its face, because they do not want to read tens of thousands of bytes of texts to unravel the intricacies of your position. If you can get the comment length under control, I think you'd find that previously adversarial editors will treat you much more respectfully - and they will actually read what you say. Please think about this, and see it as a good-faith critique. You may contact me if you have any questions. Pecopteris (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Pecopteris advice and want to add. Shortening your comments will help stop them from seeming like youre WP:BLUDGEONing especially if its easy to tell whats new. A lot of your comments seem like they say the same thing again and again trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

I dont think we will agree but that might help discussion Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you guys are saying. Thanks for being nice about it. I do feel like I have truly important things to say about Wikipedia, but I've not been saying them in the right way. I think I should take a step back until my mind is sufficiently organized to be able to make my points clearly and succinctly. Maybe some off-Wiki writing would allow me to think through my positions more clearly and separate the wheat from the chaff. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that your discussion at the Teahouse did not receive any feedback. Your foray into commentary about @Softlemonades probably had something to do with this. If I were you, I would post your query here. Make reference only to your content-related question, do not allude to editor disputes or your perception that other editors have treated you unfairly. Ideally, such a post should be no more than 500 bytes. After you've posted your query here, I think your suggestion of "taking a step back" and doing some "off-Wiki writing" to clear your mind would be a very good idea. I know you feel that you have important things to contribute here, but if you can't contribute them in a way that's comprehensible to others, or in a spirit of collaboration, I'm afraid you will get nowhere, and people will get sick of you, as some already have. I hope you understand that I'm trying to be helpful, not mean. Pecopteris (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

For record, no objection to short and simple RSN query and I dont think it would be FORUMSHOPING Softlemonades (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Various usernames

Hi! I noticed that you claimed that "I have edited Wikipedia since 2006 under various usernames." on your user page. What would those various usernames be? You are in general required to disclose previous accounts unless attempting a WP:CLEANSTART which you do not appear to be doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the reason I've not discussed previous usernames is that I posted my real name on previous accounts. It was 2008, I was a kid, and I didn't know any better. Given the level of scrutiny that I receive (already had one person attempt to uncover my real-life identity), I won't be sharing that information. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That is fair, but if you want them to remain confidential you should adhere to WP:CLEANSTART which means not editing pages you edited on your old accounts or becoming involved in conflicts you were involved in previously. I hope you have not done that, if so it will be hard to keep your old accounts confidential. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any issue in this regard. I wasn't interested enough in politics at age 12 to be editing in that area. I think there was another account I created in 2016ish. Let me see if it still exists, or if I ever edited anything politics-related. Thanks for the advice. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A note on pinging other users

Hi Philomathes. I'm assuming you contacted me requesting comment on the Bellingcat page because we've interacted briefly in the past. I'm always happy to look at articles about my area of expertise (politics). However, JSYK, it's generally frowned upon to ping other users because you think they will agree with you. So, I will probably not comment on pages based on your recommendation in the future, unless the page is of high interest to me. I recommend bringing questions and disputes about comment to places like the Teahouse and RSN. Pecopteris (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi Philomathes, I noticed that in Special:Diff/1176543065/1176595505, Pecopteris stated that you emailed them with a request to "scrutinize" the article for The Grayzone and that you specifically referred to my edit (Special:Diff/1176563631) in your email. Please note that this is a violation of the guideline against canvassing (WP:CAN), which prohibits this type of "stealth" canvassing. A public discussion regarding the article or my edit could have easily been initiated on the talk page (Talk:The Grayzone) to avoid the stealth canvassing.

The article for The Grayzone falls under three contentious topic areas (post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people; the Balkans or Eastern Europe; Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide), so please pay careful attention to the guideline against canvassing when participating in these topic areas. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood, Pecopteris made it clear that my email was inappropriate, and I acknowledge that. It won't happen again. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UsernameUnderDuress (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI 2

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dronebogus (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:The Grayzone for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

All these recent socks (not yours) - trolling just to create disruption?

I've just posted this elsewhere so for the sake of transparency posting it here , if you think I'm mistaken about you please tell me. I would like to know if you have any idea what's going on. I will say that you stepped into a cesspool and you know what happens when you do that. "What I saw showed three things. One is that Philomathes has an agenda to change our policies at least on sourcing, eg saying at an article talk page herre" I'm suggesting that the structure of western media, described as "effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", is largely responsible for the negative tone that "reliable" sources have taken in their commentary on The Grayzone, and that it exposes a problem with Wikipedia's sourcing standards when it comes to political attitudes. I reverted that. Secondly of course he has a bug about Dronebogus. Oddly various socks are attacking me and other editors saying we are neoNazi's or antisemites. I don't believe that of him (the third thing is that socks are also saying the same thing about him while others are supporting him while attacking me and others as, again, antisemites. This is all pretty bizarre and just shows someone is trolling." Doug Weller talk 07:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I really do not have any idea what is going on, Doug. I'm confused. Here's basically how I see this:

I have thought for quite a while that Dronebogus might be connected to Vizorblaze. Some other folks have told me that what's more likely is that Vizorblaze/Raxythecat is some sort of obsessive LTA troll who had ulterior motives for targeting me, and that Dronebogus is uninvolved, with the coincidental timing of Vizorblaze's creation and the coincidental behavioral similarities being just that - coincidences, or the product of a joe job.

At this point, I'm agnostic on this, because the situation has become too bizarre for me to understand. There are certainly socks supporting Dronebogus, and some, if not all of the socks are clearly the same person who doxxed me in January (Vizorblaze), which you kindly hid - see the recent post that was hidden on my talk page this week. I wasn't aware of socks supporting me, do you have any diffs you can show me?

Of course, confirmation bias initially led me to believe that the explosion of activity from Vizorblaze-related socks after my SPI filing suggested that the filing had merit. Now that I'm hearing that there are also sockpuppets supporting me and calling you an antisemite, it seems plausible that this could be a troll with an awful lot of time on his hands. What a mess. I sure wish there was a way to get to the bottom of this, but I don't think that the constraints on CU usage will allow it. I'm sorry to hear that the troll is after you, as well. Philomathes2357 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not just me, 2 or 3 other Admins. I can't show you the diff as it's hidden, but it was nonsense and what I'd expect from the person behind all this. It's typical of this sort of sockmaster to try to confuse the issue that way.

Now I think I do need to tell you that your complaints about our policy/guidelines need to be made at the appropriate talk pages of RSN, NPOV, whatever is/are most appropriate, not on article talk pages. Which of course is why I reverted your recent post. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert for the Arab-Israeli conflict

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk

You need to read WP:TIMESINK. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How about just having the conversation at the talk page, or refraining from engagement if it's not of interest to you? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been engaged, and have been told no, by more than one user, it is time for you to disengage. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing back-and-forth among multiple editors with different points of view. It's time for you to stop telling me what to do. If you want to engage, do so. If you don't, don't. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OK fine, I am warning you your behavior might be violating policy, but my last word here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scott Ritter. 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. USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Contentious labels and other proposals

step back and have a broader conversation about contentious labels.

{If you want to have a broader conversation have it at the right noticeboards and talk pages. Please stop proposing policy on article pages. It looks like forum shopping and is unproductive Softlem (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggested this as one potential course of action to resolve a content dispute. The policy was cited in an edit summary, even though it doesn't currently apply to the situation (but I'd be open to amending the policy to include "propaganda"). I never suggested that the conversation about contentious labels should take place on that specific talk page, only that such a conversation should take place generally. Please stop talking down to me. It is pedantic, rude, and unproductive. Thank you. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I never suggested that the conversation about contentious labels should take place on that specific talk page I didnt say you did and Im sorry you misunderstand what I meant. Like Slatersteven I am trying to warn you Softlem (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, it was just a misunderstanding then. I actually thought about saying "a broader conversation at 'noticeboard X' about contentious labels", but I figured that would be implied. No need to warn me, apology accepted, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with editing

Hi, I am interested in editing political topics. Could you email me with advice? NPPvvv (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

999 edits since: 2020-05-15

Make your next one count! It's a special one! jp×g🗯️ 07:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Real Anthony Fauci, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ixocactus (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)