User talk:Philomathes2357/Archive3

2020-2021

2022

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)

Pinging @Doug Weller here's another probable sock. Popped into existence with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policy, seems primarily or exclusively interested in wiki-stalking me, and was editing the same pages as Vizorblaze and using the same words. WilliamAdamall, who was already banned, was another. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Note - Vizorblaze's IP has been connected to Raxythecat on the ANI. There is another user here, who's name I will not say for now, who's been obsessively following me around, who also was doing a lot of editing on the same pages Raxythecat was accused of edit-warring. I'm just noting this for the record. Philomathes2357 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Referred this to the Checkuser who already has the details, obviously the best person to handle this. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if my indef ban doesn't get reviewed, I'd still like to see shady, bad-faith characters taken off the platform. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:37, 20 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.

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:

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.
10) I recognize that I sometimes write very long posts in talk pages, I see how that could be bothersome, and I also now recognize that writing User Essays or writing on my personal user page would be better outlets for Wikipedia-related thoughts that exceed a paragraph or two. That way, people can read them if they want, without them taking up lots of space on public talk pages. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Admins have to balance a desire to help an editor (your points 1, 2 and 4) against the necessity of avoiding future time sinks for others (most of your other points). No one gets indefinitely blocked solely for an edit war—it is quite easy to find the actual reasons on this talk page and your unblock request does not address them. Regarding your point 5, you seem to be aware that removing BLP violations is an edit-warring exemption (WP:3RRBLP) yet you were reverted by multiple users without support that I can see, and you were blocked. Are you still claiming the material you removed was a BLP violation? The BLPN report also does not appear to support for your position. If I have missed something, please explain. Points 9 and 10 are welcome but should be unnecessary—either an editor is able to know when they should move on and argue about something else, or they are not. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 23 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.

Before you try again

Philo, I think you need to do a few things before requesting a new unblock. I think you could address things with 3 relatively straight forward promises to last at 6 months. 1. Propose that as a condition of your unblock you will agree to a 1RR limit. The intent is to prevent future appearances of edit warring. 2. You will limit your talk page replies to either replies to your comments or original comments. The intent is to prevent talk page bludgeoning. 3. You will not comment on other editors on article talk pages. I don't think this was a serious part of your block but it didn't help as it makes it look like you are engaging in battle ground behavior.

I think this list works better than your request above because they are relatively clear and enforceable changes. If you follow them you should be well on the good side of the line. The are also rules that, if internalized, will make you a more effective editor. Do note that the any revert counts towards the 1 RR limit. Consider the following. I change long term stable paragraph 1. You disagree and revert me. Next I change paragraph 18. You again disagree and revert me. Those are two difference changes but they still both count as reverts. Thus you are at 2 reverts. However, if I change paragraph 1, some other editors make changes, then I change paragraph 18. You then revert both of my changes either as 1 edit or as 2 back to back edits. That would be just 1 revert as sequential edits are treated as if they were a single large edit. Anyway, if you agree to a 1RR limit please make sure you understand what counts as a revert. Springee (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, man. I appreciate all the advice you've given me in this situation, but frankly, I feel like no matter what I do, I'll be unwelcome here.

If I were unblocked, frankly, there'd not even be a need for self-imposed "rules" like the ones you and I have discussed - the issue would cease to exist, because I won't stir the pot. I'd just go work on some articles about Thai Buddhism and obscure U.N. Agreements (both of which I was working on before the indef). I'll sit back and figure out how Wikipedia actually works, in all its subtleties, before I ever made another comment about how it "should" work. And I'd keep my talk page messages terse and my reverts rare. And I wouldn't ever talk about other editors unless I was reporting seriously problematic behavior through the proper channels.

If I haven't yet convinced anyone that I'm here in good faith and that a little "rope" would go a long way, then I don't think I'll ever be able to persuasively make that case. I don't see a reason to continue begging. Wouldn't a 3rd unblock request just be more "bludgeoning"? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I get what you are saying. Consider this, one way to asswage others would be to formalize what you have just said, you are going to avoid AP2 (US politics post 1992) topics. A voluntary AP2 tban. After that I would hope that people would be less concerned. I think your two unblock requests have failed not because it's a lost cause. Instead because neither really helps the admins say, OK I think this person gets the issue or I think the proposed solution addresses the issue. As an example, assume I was blocked based on my interactions/editing etc related to [the Troubles]]. So I might be unblocked with a statement to the effect of, "here are the things I did wrong, why they were wrong and I promise not to do them again". Showing I clearly understood what I did wrong and stating I won't do it again may be enough. However, if I reply, "well I guess I didn't do it right but those people were also jerks and in the future I will just ignore the butt heads who try to POV push for the Irish/English." Well, I might never get in trouble again by ignoring the butt heads and jerks, but I'm also not likely to convince the admins that I really understand what I did wrong.

However, if I really do feel those people are POV pushing etc, and I really do mean to stay way from the topic area then suggesting a self imposed tban might be sufficient. So long as my issues really are just related to articles related to the Troubles then a request that simply says, I will stay away from this topic area (and not edit war) is probably just fine (assuming I don't have a history of trouble in other areas). After some time when I show that I'm doing good work in other topic areas (and perhaps can point to disagreements that were well handled) then I can request a review of my tban. I my view your requests needed, yet were missing, either the clear statement that you understand what the issue was and you won't do it again or a clear statement that you will stay away from the topic area. I think if you do either of those you will have better luck. Springee (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d be okay with a “plea bargain” style unblock where you accepted a topic ban from politics (all of it) and BLP. I’m sure you are here in good faith but your profound violations of WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:SEALION in those areas mean I’m unwilling to trust a simple assertion that you wouldn’t do it again, Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have quite a lot of experience being in a minority here on Wikipedia. It's allowed. When someone tried to get me sanctioned, it blew up in their face. The key is to know when not to continue pushing. There are a lot of times it's just hopeless to win a certain point. When that happens, one should briefly make one's opinion known, then move on to something else. Starting an RfC is fine, but one has to be willing to lose it. I once lost an RfC by double-digits-to-one. I just didn't make a big deal out of it, and I was fine. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that. Also, editors do respect when you acknowledge consensus is against you. [1] Springee (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were to submit yet a third unblock request, I want to keep it very short. In your opinion, should I focus on simply acknowledging where I went wrong, or should I dedicate more space to making specific proposals, such as a voluntary 1RR restriction and a voluntary topic ban on post 1992 American politics, that could be appealed after 6 months of otherwise exemplary behavior?

Perhaps I could voluntarily commit to a self-study course in Wikipedia policy, according to a syllabus/reading list, proposed by me and approved by an administrator? Do you think that would be worth proposing in an unblock request? It would certainly address what I see to be the core concern here, which is a lack of competence in matters of policy and conduct. I want to address the legitimate concerns that have been expressed. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Short is good. Committing to something vague or illdefined like a self-study course is good but if I were an admin it's little better than saying "I'm going to study the rules so I can do a better job of walking right up to the edge." Also, most people who have the authority aren't going interested in committing the time to teach you. It's easier to say no and not worry about it. I would stick with specific focused proposals. In 1-2 sentences max try to summarize what you think went wrong. Then I would suggest offering a self imposed 1RR and a 1 reply limit on talk page discussions (ie for each topic you will leave no more than 1 reply unless someone is replying to you first). This would be for 1 year, appealable after 6 month. I think that should be sufficient but you could say if it would make the responding admin feel better, include an AP2 tban during this time. Working in non-AP2 areas would probably be the best way to get some more experience and show a good editing record. The other two are really just good practice. So you have 2 sentences to say what you did wrong, and then 2-3 to say here is why admins shouldn't worry about this happening again. Springee (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes, write a third unblock request if you like, of course. But you can also save yourself the bother, as I'm considering proposing a conditional unblock for your consideration, based on things I've read above, and on discussion with a few other admins. Watch this space. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

Unblock conditions

I'm willing to lift your block on the following conditions, which would be active for 6 months:

1. The problems with your editing have nearly all appeared in political editing — not in the "articles about Thai Buddhism and obscure U.N. Agreements" that you mention. Therefore, I would impose a topic ban from post-1992 politics, broadly construed. (The year is taken from the standard Arbcom contentious topic ban from post-1992 American politics, but this would also ban you from the politics of other countries.) Examples from your recent editing that would be included in this ban are Cliven Bundy, Delcy Rodríguez, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, Prima Linea, Al-Qaeda, The Grayzone, Joe Biden, George Santos, and David Duke, as well as their talkpages. Also, per this ban, you would not be allowed to take part in discussions of political subjects on noticeboards, user talkpages, or anywhere else. Please consult WP:TBAN for the general concept of a topic ban.
2. A 1RR ban. Again, please read WP:1RR to see what that means.
3. Restraint on talkpages: keep your talkpage posts a reasonable length. I'm leaving it to your good faith to decide what is reasonable. But your posts should not, at the very least, be much longer than everybody else's. Also keep the number down to five posts per 24 hours per talkpage. If you feel you have good reason to post more in a particular case, ask me first. (I'm sorry, Springee, but I'm dubious of your proposed anti-bludgeoning talkpage rule ["You will limit your talk page replies to either replies to your comments or original comments."]. I don't quite see how that would stop Philomathes from overwhelming talkpages.)
4. Obviously this is policy and applies to everybody, but still: you must not attack people and not assume bad faith. And, as I told you once in a warning that you did not respond to: show respect. Attacks wrapped in formal language aren't better than crude name-calling (I gave an example).

I hope you will edit with reasonable diligence during the 6 months, to show that you can be constructive when politics aren't in question. If you go away for 6 months and then turn up with no practice under your belt, it seems likely that you'll relapse and be blocked again. Note also that you're free to edit all the Wikimedia SISTER projects, with no restrictions. Indeed, that would be true even if you remained blocked here.

Please consider carefully before you accept or decline these conditions, Philomathes. Let me know if anything is unclear, or if you have a counterproposal on any point. Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

After 6 months, would these conditions be lifted automatically, or would they be subject to a formal appeal and be contingent upon further administrative judgement/debate?

Also, would my work on, say, United Nations agreements be allowed to continue per the 6 month post-1992 politics ban? I'm mainly interested in those that have "stub" classification and "high" importance ranking. I see a lot of potential for improvement, and it's something I know a lot about. Most of these agreements and treaties were written in the 1940s and 50s. I can't foresee any of my edits there causing controversy, but I would always adhere to the 1RR ban.

If I can have a bit of clarification on those two points, I'm very open to these conditions. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. These are time-limited conditions that I propose, for 6 months. They would be lifted automatically.

You mean United Nations agreements such as Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations? Yes, it would be fine for you to continue editing that. If any of your work should start to abut on post-1992 events, you'd better ask, though. If you would like to explicitly declare that you accept my conditions, I can unblock you right away. But don't hurry on my account. I'll be going to bed in a couple of hours, but it can be taken care of tomorrow (in my timezone, UTC+1) just as well. Bishonen | tålk 21:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, that article is one I'd like to continue improving, along with similar articles on U.N. agreements. I accept your conditions without reservation. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You have been unblocked. Happy editing! Bishonen | tålk 22:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC).

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)