This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2020-2021

2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent questions, but without absolute answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What previous accounts have you used?

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

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

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

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

Points to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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