Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this fix. However, your edit summary ias inaccurate. My edit addressed the problem introduced by this edit.
I didn't look at past revisions to see where the problem was introduced, but apparently reacted to the change in content I saw on my watchlist without looking at the edit summary which explained it. I see on looking at the recent article history that there was an intervening ceditby you which did not change the article content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As shown on the [ revision history page] of the relevant article, the edit war was initiated and perpetuated by another user ( Binksternet), who initially changed the article (see the revert to the stable version by John B123 on 28 January 2021, and the subsequent change by the aforementioned user). The user refused to provide a citation for their claim, which contradicts the references provided in the article (as I mentioned in the comment of my edits). Either way I will no longer make changes to the main article myself, but I wish to continue the debate on the talk page. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were in obvious violation of WP:3RR. You were warned, and you continued to edit war. What did you expect would happen? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:08, 31 January 2021 (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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This time, I made 100% sure that all of my edits were in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I discussed the topic on the talk page until a temporary consensus was reached (threads here (note the discussion ending at 09:44, 6 February 2021) and here). I waited for more than a week to confirm that those who had originally opposed the edits no longer attempted to defend the old version of the definition. However, today, I noticed that one of them (user STSC) had removed the discuss template from the article and marked this as a 'minor change' despite the discussion on the talk page having settled in favor of changing the definition (which seems like clear vandalism in this case). I took that as an indication that those who originally argued against changing the definition could no longer come up with counterarguments (which seems to be the case here, given that all of them are still quite active but have no longer made attempts to justify their stance further) so I made the suggested edit to the article. The suggested edit was then reverted by user John B123 without consensus---he didn't provide a reason other than that in his opinion, no consensus had been reached for the edit in the first place (despite there being no one defending the original version anymore).
I decided not to revert his change, as I thought he might want to give some reasoning for why he personally did not agree with the edit. I added a dubious – discuss template to the lead sentence to reflect the current state of the talk page, where the definition has been disputed with a preponderance of evidence, and to get more editors to join the discussion to assist in establishing consensus. In other words, this edit was aimed at promoting establishment of consensus and I deemed it necessary to avoid an edit war. Yet Binksternet, another user, decided to revert this change in a blatant attempt to stifle discussion. I reverted his reverts two times in a row, but then gave up so as not to violate the 3RR rule.
In this case scenario, is it actually reasonable for me to be banned for doing what I can to promote the establishment of a consensus? Especially given that the talk page discussion on the lead sentence had been inactive for 9 days in a row, with no one trying to argue against adopting my suggestion anymore? I wasn't even reverting the edit that removed my suggested version of the lead sentence---I literally only "edit-warred" to maintain the dubious – discuss template that was necessary to invite more editors to the talk page. I also stopped making the reverts well before being blocked, exactly so as not to violate the 3RR rule. After giving up on reverting Binksternet's edits, I took the issue to dispute resolution and urged everyone involved in the debate to participate ( thread here); this, more than anything, should show that I have no intention to engage in an edit war. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is warring. There are no two ways around it. Exemptions to the policies against edit warring can be found at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. I don't believe any of these apply here.
Please be far more careful. The next block will likely be for way longer. SQL Query me! 04:03, 16 February 2021 (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.
Bavio, I had been writing a longer decline that I lost to the edit conflict. I believe I should still share what I had written:
Your lengthy request encouraged me to look at the record behind these blocks. And based on that, I believe you have erred in resting so much on your recourse to the DRN this time.
It was noted there by one of the volunteers that there seems to be consensus at the talk page for the current wording of the lede sentence, and that the nine editors you notified is rather a lot for DRN; perhaps RFC would be more. But, to me, that's beyond the point.
Simply put, if you were to go there, it would be hard not to describe your behavior as forum shopping ... looking for yet another place where you might be able to win this time. And that's what you seemed to be doing at DRN.
Yes, you were civil (you always have been) and did not actually edit war this time. But that isn't the point. You are beginning to become subtly tendentious, rehashing arguments that have more than once failed to carry the day, and it is that for which I think you have been blocked. You have scrupulously adhered to the letter of policy at the same time that you have failed to grasp its spirit. If nothing else, this block is a message to you that it is well past time to drop the stick and back away from the bloody remnants of the horse.
I would also commend WP:1AM to your attention; I think you'll be able to emphasize with it now.
Specifically I would point out that you have, as several of your interlocutors pointed out, confused your own extensive critiques of the comfort-women claim, which are undeniably original research, with those that have been published by reliable sources. Perhaps someday Ramseyer's view will find support and become more widely accepted; then we can consider your proposed lede. But for now the academic consensus is that most of the comfort women were coerced and misled into that position. And so the article will stay. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Bavio, during this month alone, you have made at least 33 substantive posts to Talk:Comfort women (not counting minor follow-up tweaks), amounting to a total of ~130,000 bytes (4,000 bytes per posting on average). You managed to rack up this count even though you were blocked about a third of the time. This morning alone, it's been 25,000 bytes.
By the sheer volume of it, this is no longer healthy discussion. This is bludgeoning the process. Much of it is repetitive. You're restating the same arguments over and over. You can't expect other editors to keep reacting to this barrage of postings. This has become disruptive.
Under the discretionary sanctions rule linked to above, I'm imposing a 6-month topic ban from the issue of "comfort women". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As can be seen on the talk page, I have only repeated (rephrased) my points when addressing repetitive arguments by other users (particularly Binksternet, as well as NettingFish15019 in some instances). For an example, see multiple comments by Binksternet arguing for basing the definition in the lede on the 1996 UN report, a source that I have repeatedly shown to be unreliable based on Wikipedia's rules. My arguments have been much more varied than his: anyone can confirm this. I have never made straw man arguments, argumenta ad hominem or arguments to authority, unlike some other editors. I have ensured that my side of the discussion has been as healthy, logical and evidence-based as it could reasonably be expected to be, something that can arguably not be said of some of the other users on the page.
And most importantly, I am attempting to address what seems to be systemic bias by other editors (and, ostensibly, certain administrators). I am arguing in favor of a view that many editors appear to consider fringe despite a large body of evidence pointing to the contrary. Banning me from participating in the discussion would then almost certainly have a negative effect on the article, in terms of neutrality and objectivity.
In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider this decision. If you feel it would be better for me to limit the number of edits I make per day, or to restrict my posts below a specific (reasonable) character limit, this I can certainly contend with. This would seem much more reasonable and useful for healthy discussion than a complete ban on a vocal member of the community. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 06:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See an excerpt of my intended response to user:Cullen328 in this thread that I was unable to post because of the sudden block:
""Slander" is defined as "1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation; 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person. In informal contexts, any lies about another can be referred to as "slander", and, as I proved above, your statement can unambiguously be defined as such. This is only a legal threat when the object of said statements threatens legal action.
You should probably have read the Wikipedia page you linked before posting it: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors.
I'm sorry if I got you all excited, but I have no intention to sue anyone for defaming my Wikipedia account."
I rest my case. Given that I never threatened to engage in external legal action, this block is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Gave me a good laugh though. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 06:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I will not unblock anyone whose unblock request contains personal attacks against another editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 26 February 2021 (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.
Another thing some may find interesting is that I always referred to Cullen328 as "he or she", or "they", not because I care about their gender identity, but because I assume no knowledge of who or what they are in real life. They claim that they have posted their real life identity in their profile, but I have no reason to believe the information there is factual or accurate.
I pointed out that the Wikipedia account Cullen328 made a slanderous statement, but I could not care less about the person behind the account. I refuse to assume such a person even exists. They could be an AI for all I know. I believe this is the stance we should all assume when on the internet in general, given that we live in an era of rampant disinformation and bots are becoming increasingly intelligent. And for that matter, while I see Cullen328's statement as slander towards the account Bavio the Benighted, I do not consider said statement to constitute slander against any real life person or entity.
Anyway. To repeat, I confirm that I have no intention of taking legal action against the person behind the account Cullen328, assuming such a person exists. As such, again, the ban is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 07:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Per agreement with the conditions above, I have now unblocked. I advise you not to take any bait or respond in kind to comments, but if you see any genuine unwarranted attacks, to report them to administrators without getting involved. (Courtesy ping to Cullen328 and El_C). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Though I will admit, it was something of a close call. I just wanted to urge you to be careful with regard to your topic ban: this is one of those situations where it is best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. All the best. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bavio the Benighted. Your appeal against the topic ban from Comfort women that was imposed on 24 February by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has been declined per a discussion at WP:AN. Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this fix. However, your edit summary ias inaccurate. My edit addressed the problem introduced by this edit.
I didn't look at past revisions to see where the problem was introduced, but apparently reacted to the change in content I saw on my watchlist without looking at the edit summary which explained it. I see on looking at the recent article history that there was an intervening ceditby you which did not change the article content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Acroterion
(talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As shown on the [ revision history page] of the relevant article, the edit war was initiated and perpetuated by another user ( Binksternet), who initially changed the article (see the revert to the stable version by John B123 on 28 January 2021, and the subsequent change by the aforementioned user). The user refused to provide a citation for their claim, which contradicts the references provided in the article (as I mentioned in the comment of my edits). Either way I will no longer make changes to the main article myself, but I wish to continue the debate on the talk page. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were in obvious violation of WP:3RR. You were warned, and you continued to edit war. What did you expect would happen? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:08, 31 January 2021 (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.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This time, I made 100% sure that all of my edits were in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I discussed the topic on the talk page until a temporary consensus was reached (threads here (note the discussion ending at 09:44, 6 February 2021) and here). I waited for more than a week to confirm that those who had originally opposed the edits no longer attempted to defend the old version of the definition. However, today, I noticed that one of them (user STSC) had removed the discuss template from the article and marked this as a 'minor change' despite the discussion on the talk page having settled in favor of changing the definition (which seems like clear vandalism in this case). I took that as an indication that those who originally argued against changing the definition could no longer come up with counterarguments (which seems to be the case here, given that all of them are still quite active but have no longer made attempts to justify their stance further) so I made the suggested edit to the article. The suggested edit was then reverted by user John B123 without consensus---he didn't provide a reason other than that in his opinion, no consensus had been reached for the edit in the first place (despite there being no one defending the original version anymore).
I decided not to revert his change, as I thought he might want to give some reasoning for why he personally did not agree with the edit. I added a dubious – discuss template to the lead sentence to reflect the current state of the talk page, where the definition has been disputed with a preponderance of evidence, and to get more editors to join the discussion to assist in establishing consensus. In other words, this edit was aimed at promoting establishment of consensus and I deemed it necessary to avoid an edit war. Yet Binksternet, another user, decided to revert this change in a blatant attempt to stifle discussion. I reverted his reverts two times in a row, but then gave up so as not to violate the 3RR rule.
In this case scenario, is it actually reasonable for me to be banned for doing what I can to promote the establishment of a consensus? Especially given that the talk page discussion on the lead sentence had been inactive for 9 days in a row, with no one trying to argue against adopting my suggestion anymore? I wasn't even reverting the edit that removed my suggested version of the lead sentence---I literally only "edit-warred" to maintain the dubious – discuss template that was necessary to invite more editors to the talk page. I also stopped making the reverts well before being blocked, exactly so as not to violate the 3RR rule. After giving up on reverting Binksternet's edits, I took the issue to dispute resolution and urged everyone involved in the debate to participate ( thread here); this, more than anything, should show that I have no intention to engage in an edit war. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is warring. There are no two ways around it. Exemptions to the policies against edit warring can be found at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. I don't believe any of these apply here.
Please be far more careful. The next block will likely be for way longer. SQL Query me! 04:03, 16 February 2021 (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.
Bavio, I had been writing a longer decline that I lost to the edit conflict. I believe I should still share what I had written:
Your lengthy request encouraged me to look at the record behind these blocks. And based on that, I believe you have erred in resting so much on your recourse to the DRN this time.
It was noted there by one of the volunteers that there seems to be consensus at the talk page for the current wording of the lede sentence, and that the nine editors you notified is rather a lot for DRN; perhaps RFC would be more. But, to me, that's beyond the point.
Simply put, if you were to go there, it would be hard not to describe your behavior as forum shopping ... looking for yet another place where you might be able to win this time. And that's what you seemed to be doing at DRN.
Yes, you were civil (you always have been) and did not actually edit war this time. But that isn't the point. You are beginning to become subtly tendentious, rehashing arguments that have more than once failed to carry the day, and it is that for which I think you have been blocked. You have scrupulously adhered to the letter of policy at the same time that you have failed to grasp its spirit. If nothing else, this block is a message to you that it is well past time to drop the stick and back away from the bloody remnants of the horse.
I would also commend WP:1AM to your attention; I think you'll be able to emphasize with it now.
Specifically I would point out that you have, as several of your interlocutors pointed out, confused your own extensive critiques of the comfort-women claim, which are undeniably original research, with those that have been published by reliable sources. Perhaps someday Ramseyer's view will find support and become more widely accepted; then we can consider your proposed lede. But for now the academic consensus is that most of the comfort women were coerced and misled into that position. And so the article will stay. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Bavio, during this month alone, you have made at least 33 substantive posts to Talk:Comfort women (not counting minor follow-up tweaks), amounting to a total of ~130,000 bytes (4,000 bytes per posting on average). You managed to rack up this count even though you were blocked about a third of the time. This morning alone, it's been 25,000 bytes.
By the sheer volume of it, this is no longer healthy discussion. This is bludgeoning the process. Much of it is repetitive. You're restating the same arguments over and over. You can't expect other editors to keep reacting to this barrage of postings. This has become disruptive.
Under the discretionary sanctions rule linked to above, I'm imposing a 6-month topic ban from the issue of "comfort women". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As can be seen on the talk page, I have only repeated (rephrased) my points when addressing repetitive arguments by other users (particularly Binksternet, as well as NettingFish15019 in some instances). For an example, see multiple comments by Binksternet arguing for basing the definition in the lede on the 1996 UN report, a source that I have repeatedly shown to be unreliable based on Wikipedia's rules. My arguments have been much more varied than his: anyone can confirm this. I have never made straw man arguments, argumenta ad hominem or arguments to authority, unlike some other editors. I have ensured that my side of the discussion has been as healthy, logical and evidence-based as it could reasonably be expected to be, something that can arguably not be said of some of the other users on the page.
And most importantly, I am attempting to address what seems to be systemic bias by other editors (and, ostensibly, certain administrators). I am arguing in favor of a view that many editors appear to consider fringe despite a large body of evidence pointing to the contrary. Banning me from participating in the discussion would then almost certainly have a negative effect on the article, in terms of neutrality and objectivity.
In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider this decision. If you feel it would be better for me to limit the number of edits I make per day, or to restrict my posts below a specific (reasonable) character limit, this I can certainly contend with. This would seem much more reasonable and useful for healthy discussion than a complete ban on a vocal member of the community. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. El_C 06:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Bavio the Benighted ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See an excerpt of my intended response to user:Cullen328 in this thread that I was unable to post because of the sudden block:
""Slander" is defined as "1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation; 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person. In informal contexts, any lies about another can be referred to as "slander", and, as I proved above, your statement can unambiguously be defined as such. This is only a legal threat when the object of said statements threatens legal action.
You should probably have read the Wikipedia page you linked before posting it: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors.
I'm sorry if I got you all excited, but I have no intention to sue anyone for defaming my Wikipedia account."
I rest my case. Given that I never threatened to engage in external legal action, this block is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Gave me a good laugh though. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 06:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I will not unblock anyone whose unblock request contains personal attacks against another editor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:30, 26 February 2021 (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.
Another thing some may find interesting is that I always referred to Cullen328 as "he or she", or "they", not because I care about their gender identity, but because I assume no knowledge of who or what they are in real life. They claim that they have posted their real life identity in their profile, but I have no reason to believe the information there is factual or accurate.
I pointed out that the Wikipedia account Cullen328 made a slanderous statement, but I could not care less about the person behind the account. I refuse to assume such a person even exists. They could be an AI for all I know. I believe this is the stance we should all assume when on the internet in general, given that we live in an era of rampant disinformation and bots are becoming increasingly intelligent. And for that matter, while I see Cullen328's statement as slander towards the account Bavio the Benighted, I do not consider said statement to constitute slander against any real life person or entity.
Anyway. To repeat, I confirm that I have no intention of taking legal action against the person behind the account Cullen328, assuming such a person exists. As such, again, the ban is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Bavio the Benighted ( talk) 07:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Per agreement with the conditions above, I have now unblocked. I advise you not to take any bait or respond in kind to comments, but if you see any genuine unwarranted attacks, to report them to administrators without getting involved. (Courtesy ping to Cullen328 and El_C). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Though I will admit, it was something of a close call. I just wanted to urge you to be careful with regard to your topic ban: this is one of those situations where it is best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. All the best. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Bavio the Benighted. Your appeal against the topic ban from Comfort women that was imposed on 24 February by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has been declined per a discussion at WP:AN. Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)