User talk:Wikieditor19920: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

The article Alan Dershowitz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alan Dershowitz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheEpicGhosty -- TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do my best to get to this ASAP! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- stuff like talking about rumours about her affair (yes -- I agree -- widely reported on by RS, but still)... is likely a thorn in the side of any future attempt to get the actually DUE info into the article: the complaints by Jewish Americans, spanning the political spectrum and including high profile men and women as well as her own constituents, about her rhetoric. Which maybe I too went about the wrong way, but one thing I can say for sure is that this current endeavour will convince many an editor who would otherwise sit on the fence that what is going on is a number of editors being "out to get her" (even though I do not think that is the case). As I said, just a thought. --Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I try not to concern myself with that kind of stuff, though. I try to evaluate each individual content proposal on its merits as it relates to policy/consistency. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you deleted the discussion of Ilhan Omar. I said that your comments accused other editors of insensitivity to anti-Semitism, you denied that and asked for a source, I provided the source and then you said that other editors were insensitive to anti-Semitism. When you bring in this type of argumentation it's like the endless loop in a computer program. You will deny you accused other editors of anti-Semitism, I will provide evidence, you will defend your position, I will say it's a bad position, you will deny it's your position and ask for evidence. Why don't you just clearly state your position and arguments? Maybe your position is correct. But we will never know unless you use rational arguments to defend it. TFD (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: I think you'll find my arguments pretty clearly stated. @You will deny you accused other editors of anti-Semitism.: Provide the quote where I said anything of this sort. (Hint: I didn't.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant insensitivity to anti-Semitism. TFD (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be more precise with your posts and your reading. I criticized a specific discussion for its result—I didn't speculate about the motivations, and certainly not in the way you suggest. WP:AGF. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "The community has refused to consider allegations (of anti-semitism) covered by the NYTimes as WP:DUE." My reading is that you are saying the community is insensitive to anti-Semitism. So you don't think it showed insensitivity in leaving out allegations of anti-Semitism that had been covered in reliable sources or that the average reader who read it that way? TFD (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Given some of the remarks on that page, with editors defending the remarks instead of discussing policy, which you have neither acknowledged nor addressed, I find it curious that you've decided to jump all over me for my critique. However, if an insensitivity to anti-semitism if perceived like you suggest, it would be because of the discussion and its result, not my criticism of it as incorrect on policy grounds. I am entitled to that opinion, I made none of the insinuations or accusations you are attributing to me, and I don't need to justify it to you. Do not continue badgering me about it or falsely insinuating that I made some accusation against another editor, WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any editor is allowed to remove unproductive conversations from their talk page, without having to explain themselves or be criticized for it. Consider it the end of the discussion. WP:TALKOWN. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:npa calling a user a troll is a serious allegation that should not be made lightly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I don't think I called anyone a troll. Please raising frivolous issues regarding RfC and review the relevant policy page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NO you accused them of trolling ("you are basically confirming that you are trolling right now"), which is the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC) to f[reply]

@Slatersteven: I actually agree -- better to react more diplomatically. I've redacted it. For your part, stop making frivolous arguments about form on the RfC, which is in compliance w/ the guidelines, and please focus on substance. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alan Dershowitz you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alan Dershowitz for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheEpicGhosty -- TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could've gotten to this sooner... Will try again and hopefully get it up again in next few months. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page unless you wish to bring my attention to a constructive argument. Discussion concerning a specific article's edits belongs at that article's talk page. If you have any concerns about my editing beyond a specific article, the right place to go is WP:ANI. Thanks. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zloyvolsheb: I wish to bring attention to your problematic editing, and your talk page is the appropriate place to do so. You are engaging in obvious POV editing at Bernie Sanders. You are removing a controversy about his views expressed in an interview that received substantial coverage from the NYT and other pieces. You have paid little attention to other aspects of the article. I would be happy to submit for review your pattern of attempting to selectively remove controversial or negative information from that page, which is strong evidence of inappropriate POV editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do submit it for further review, I encourage it. In the meantime, use article talk pages and do not post threats on my personal talk page. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zloyvolsheb: Your arguments at that page make no sense. You are suggesting "grammatical" issues (??? the grammar is perfect) as a basis for wholesale removal of views he expressed that were criticized in national publications. You understand how this looks? It comes off as blatant whitewashing with a weak perfunctory alternative argument. Dispute resolution is not a threat. I suggest you discuss content and how it can be improved before making such heavy use of your "delete" button when it comes to controversies or possible criticisms at the Bernie Sanders article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you were previously asked to refrain from personally attacking those with different views from yourself by multiple people, I am submitting a discretionary sanctions enforcement request against you at WP:AE. Please comment there. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-correct this [1]. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my job to track which comments you went back and later revised. Further, that diff does not change the meaning of your comment in any substantial way. You are free to offer the "correction" on the AE page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your call, it was noted. I believe there is a difference. [2] Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I've provided a link to the copy-edited diff. You also stated you are assuming good faith, and did the opposite by suggesting I "misused" the pre-copy edit diff. No one notices these copy edits; the sentiment of your argument came through. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said was it was clear misuse but I also assumed an "honest mistake." Since it was an inappropriate diff it was technically misuse, but my intention was to avoid connoting that it was a deliberate misuse (abuse) as opposed to inadvertent. So I added that to make it clearer. Anyway, thanks for correcting it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, since you've alleged that I have edited two articles inconsistently. You've just articulated disagreement with WP:RECENTISM as a justification for excluding content at Talk:Bernie Sanders, but it looks like you removed a statement with multiple sources based on that very justification from the same article: [3]. Would you care to explain that inconsistency? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You apply totally different standards for editing controversies/content seemingly based on who the politician is. I removed a statement about an issue in flux, a candidate's frontrunner status, from the lead, later restored it after I saw it confirmed by the NYT, and then it was removed again the next week by another editor after a few primary losses nullified frontrunner status. Check all the diffs, and I know you know the difference. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you did accept WP:RECENTISM as valid when you made that edit? Did your view change? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that being considered the front-runner in the Democratic primaries for several weeks is RECENTISM and UNDUE while comments he made that may have weakened his chances in a primary he had no chance of winning anyway is DUE? TFD (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is questionable for the lead to say he IS the frontrunner when primary elections are ongoing and that changes week-to-week. In other words, RECENTISM is a concern when referencing a condition subject to change and in flux, because it may be accurate one week and innaccurate the next. Initially, I removed it. Of course, I was convinced when I saw the NYT call him such after the first round, and added it back (I don't know where the diff is, but it's there). And guess what? I was wrong for restoring it. Because by the next week, he was no longer the frontrunner and another editor had taken it off. That's how RECENTISM properly works. The body can say he was once the frontrunner, and probably should, as well as document other developments that received substantial coverage.

Now, when Zloyvolsheb argue at Biden that a few second-tier sources are sufficient to include sexual assault allegations, and argue endlessly against including a well-documented controversy in the Sanders campaign, how do you think that comes off? Let me put it another way. When you see an editor throw shade at a candidate on the talk page for their article, and offer a sympathetic defense of their opponent on that talk page, take a wild guess which page that editor is likely to argue for inclusion of controversial information and which page you think that editor would like to see them gone. Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not look like a good explanation. Wikipedia can be edited at anytime, so current frontrunner status or anything else can be updated at any time. But you chose to remove it completely, citing WP:RECENTISM. You also applied the 10-year-test in relation to Michael Bloomberg [4]. Clearly you believe in rejecting sources according to RECENTISM, but argue the opposite now, when it is used by others. Did you ask yourself how that comes off? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to explain. I personally both removed and added the frontrunner information at different times based on which sources had used that label.[5][6]. I also made my points on the talk page each time.[7][8]. Note how I first said I wanted to see major publications call him that, and then added it back after I indeed found major publications saying that? That's called a consistently applied standard. But I am happy to accept feedback, so please, point out to me the supposed inconsistency. Or, compare that with your political commentary on these two candidates talk pages, and then removing reliably sourced information at Bernie Sanders while arguing for inclusion of still-developing BLP sensitive allegations at Joe Biden. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia can be edited at any time." Correct. The lead is also supposed to offer a concise summary of relevant information, and should be the most stable aspect of the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone was considered the frontrunner is usually seen as a key fact in biographies: George Romney (1968), Edmund Muskie (1972), Gary Hart (1988), Howard Dean (2004), Hillary Clinton (2008). It is still mentioned in articles about Sanders, for example, "How Bernie Sanders went from frontrunner to the last-chance saloon" (Guardian, 15 March 2020).

In the case of Biden, I would be quite happy to add the allegations against him if they become an issue covered in mainstream media, rather than a single mention.

The problem with the media is that their priorities are not what you or I would choose. However chances are that you and I would not have the same priorities as each other, which is why policy has chosen to use weight determined in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Yeah? Well, OK then. The two diffs and talk page contributions illustrate my position, and I have nothing much more to add there. why policy has chosen to use weight determined in reliable sources. I couldn't agree more. That is the standard I've been arguing for at Bernie Sanders in the last discussion. (I also concur the Joe Biden allegations can be included, but only after we have first-tier sources like the NYT reporting on it, which we now do.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Wikieditor19920: Feel free to conduct your own survey of how many were chanting, but the source reported that a number were. Please do not put snide remarks in edit summaries. And what number? 5? 500? And this is sourced to some undefined, social media post. O3000 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TMI. What, are we supposed to say "50 out of 75 people chanted." The piece, from the "Times of Israel," describes a "number" of people chanting. The Times of Israel is a reputable source. The level of precision you are asking for isn't necessary. The source is the Times of Israel, not a social media post. WP:SECONDARY. The post they reference was actually a video recording, posted on social media. If you want precision, please be precise in explaining sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I'll note that Times of Israel is a more reliable sources than many provided on that page. Mashable? If you want to work with me to find better sources or more in-text attribution, I would welcome that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do not like collaborating with other editors that make snide remarks in edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I deeply, sincerely, and wholeheartedly apologize for my snide remark. I kneel before you, humbly taking your hand, upon which I kiss to show my contrition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue with another snide remark, conversation over. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: For the record, the "quantity" tag is unnecessary. Let's apply common sense here. This is, as you probably know, a level of precision that no reliable source could verify or provide, and does not. The story was that "a number of" DSA members were making this chant. Notice that at [[9]], nowhere does it specify the "exact number" of fraternity members chanting racist slurs. And nowhere is this information deemed relevant or necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making abusive or otherwise inappropriate edit summaries. Your edit summary may have been removed. Please look at pages regarding Civility and Personal attacks in your spare time. Thank you.[10]

• I didn't template you for this yesterday. But now you have done this twice in two days. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Excuse me? Almost all of your comments at the DSA talk page begin with "you" and are followed by some accusatory statement or personal criticism. WP:FOC indeed. My comments have addressed content. Your comments are increasingly combative and personal and I have no interest in continuing a back-and-forth in that vein. I'll also note that your recent tagging of the page resembles exactly what you complained about when I applied tags to pages in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false. You tagged three articles at the top after failing to gain consensus and I complained that you were tagging entire articles. I tagged a small section that is under discussion and to which you edit warred in changes without consent. Of course none of this has to do with the template above. Placing PAs in edit summaries, or anything close, is worse than a PA on a TP because there can be no response. O3000 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Each of my comments have addressed arguments. You are behaving belligerently at DSA, I have no further response to you there, or here. These are your contributions at the DSA talk page:

• You are doing it again. You have just been told on AE to FOC, and the case is still open. Diff
• :You claiming you have consensus is not consensus. And you claiming other editors are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply false. As usual, you fail to WP:FOC.
• And, RSN doesn't agree with you on issues like this. But, you ignored BRD and just edit warred in your position. Diff
• Why would an encyclopedia push such a suggestive, weaselly, POV sentence when we haven't the slightest concept of 'dueness'? In reference to a reliable source that stated exactly what was represented in the article.

And here is you making yet another combative post directed another editor.

• WP:FOC is not just designed to make the editing process more pleasant, but to make it more productive. If you want to make a change in the focus of the article, you must convince other editors that you have a case. You haven’t done that, and frankly, aren’t likely to with your sources, argument, or attitude.
• If you have a problem with The Washington Post, take it to RSN and stop rejecting everything from a reliable source. Diff
• You will never gain a consensus for anything by resorting to attacks and bad faith assumptions. I and others here see no problem with the correct text as per WP:BALASP. I have explained my position quite clearly. The fact that you have a different opinion does not in any way mean obstinance on my part. People have different opinions. Get used to it. Diff

The fact that you don't see the irony in these posts, lecturing others about FOC and invoking policy, along with conduct warning templates, all the while engaging in exactly the behavior you are ascribing to others — reactive hostility, personalized criticisms, combative attitude — shows how quickly you are to resort to personalized criticisms when someone may be getting the better of you in a debate. Follow the Golden Rule. When you start addressing content arguments, and not me personally, in a calm and reasoned way, we can continue the conversation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clever. Give my responses, but don't put in the accusations that I'm responding to. But, irony is indeed the correct term. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You either have to use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or {{hat}} and {{hab}}. Took me a long time to figure that out, if it makes you feel any better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Ah, I see. Thank you, much appreciated! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Legal Aid Society logo 2020.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Legal Aid Society Logo 2020.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request that you withdraw your close...

Nope.

...because the summary you provided is of zero help to resolving the issue

The issue -- a content dispute -- should be resolved on the article talk page, not WP:FORUMSHOPED to vaguely relevant noticeboards. I read the section, and, bluntly, the editor perhaps least helpful in resolving anything was you yourself. As User:Objective3000 said:

• You must stop claiming that other editors said things they never said.
• No, I didn't say to add "a tiny fraction" to the text either. This is pointless
• You simply don't understand what I and others have said, no matter how many times we repeat it.
• Somebody close this. No chance it will ever do anything but waste time.

You couldn't even find level ground on what the other party said, and the editors not already involved didn't agree with you. The point of the page is to get advice, not for affirming yourr own point of view. The whole thing had become a waste of time, as O300 said, so I put it out of its misery, as requested. Remember the talk page? Stick to that, actually listen to what other parties -- including third-parties -- say, avoid Strawman arguments and synthesis by proximity, and do NOT go venue-shopping unless you have something concrete to sell. If you want to filibuster, stick to one page.

I will give you a few hours to reconsider, and then I will open a thread on ANI

Spare me the unctuous attempts at a threat and be done with it. Remember that ALL participants will be scrutinized: are you sure you want that? --Calton | Talk 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'll be sure to bring this up as evidence of your sincerity: @Objective3000: I deeply, sincerely, and wholeheartedly apologize for my snide remark. I kneel before you, humbly taking your hand, upon which I kiss to show my contrition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calton: What an obnoxious, confrontational post. The above comments were examples of O3000's belligerence and refusal to address my arguments, or the flaws in their own. Other users clearly acknowledged that the arguments by O3000 were political and probably not compliant with NPOV. A limited few users agreed with the political arguments without weighing in on policy.

This was clearly an NPOV dispute, as alleged by both sides, and if you want to close the discussion, all you had to do was weigh in on whether 1) the content was NPOV compliant and 2) the reasoning offered was NPOV compliant. You did neither, and instead took sides in a personal dispute, one frankly that I have no interest in. I will be opening an ANI for your improper closure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that last comment was obviously a joke, and one of no relevance to this matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, even the way you summarized the result was unfair. You pulled a quote out of context, completely mischaracterizing the whole discussion, accused me of being wrong, and left it there. This is a totally inappropriate way to summarize a discussion -- basically calling out one user with a cherrypicked quote and ignoring the central pieces of their argument. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment here: You should retract your false accusation of FORUMSHOPPING. At no point did I present a "strawman," though I was debating with a user who denied making remarks despite diffs and quotes showing otherwise. I sought input from a single forum over a dipute that was characterized as centering on NPOV by both sides involved, after discussions at the talk page failed: NPOVN. Forum shopping is the inappropriate use of multiple forums. By your standard, seeking input from any of the discussion noticeboards is FORUMSHOPPING. You have accused me of misbehavior without basis and singled me out for criticism in a closure result summary. This is not acceptable behavior for someone purporting to provide neutral closure to discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O3000's belligerence and refusal to address my arguments Yet another of many false accusations you have made. I have responded to everyu one of your argumenst (mostly strawman arguments) and have in no way acted belligerently. Disagreeing is not belligerence. Retract it. O3000 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Disagreement is not the issue. Personalized accusations, denying you made comments that diffs show you indeed made, and cursing and swearing is belligerence. I've asked you to stay off my talk page. Here's why. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot order me to stay off your page and then make false accusations about me on your page. The list of such is growing. You repeatedly claimed that I made statements I never made. You have to stop these personal attacks. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression of your behavior. If you want to leave a better impression, I suggest a different tack than the one showed in the two threads above. Last time I'm telling you, don't post here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for three months from post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned For battleground behaviour towards other editors after previously being warned.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I will be appealing this, and an explanation would be helpful as to what part of DE I violated, other than a content disagreement with a long-time user. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously warned at AE to focus on content, not editor conduct. Here you told someone to focus on content, not conduct, while at the same time accusing them of stonewalling in a hostile and battleground way. In this diff you accused other editors of making bad faith accusations against you. In this one you accused yet another editor of being "obnoxious" and "belligerent" and accused another person of making political arguments. Here again, you're accusing other editors of violating conduct standards without diffs, and here you seem to imply that an admin was acting improperly by criticizing your behaviour.

These diffs are also not in line with the warnings that Bishonen previously gave you in January and December. You've been given multiple warnings to stop with the battleground conduct. This is the next natural escalation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Did you read the posts I was responding to, by O3000 in particular? This user was behaving in a fashion that, if "belligerent" is not an acceptable phrase, I found combative. I think this was an unduly harsh and reactive measure, and not justified by the diffs you provided above. [11] Is one example: I was accused of forum shopping, yet sought input at only a single forum. In what way is this an inappropriate reply? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of a trend. Individual actions that on their own wouldn't lead to sanctions, but after three warnings to stop and not doing so, there really isn't much else that can happen short of sanctions of some sort. You have been warned multiple times to stop personalizing disputes, commenting on conduct, and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. It is the totality of your conduct in this topic area over at least 6 months that shows a break from this area is needed. This isn't one diff. This is many over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who presented these diffs, and I find your descriptions inaccurate and unfair. You said I was "accusing an admin of impropriety," when I merely refuted the suggestion that I had been forum shopping (I literally hadn't). Am I not allowed to disagree with an admin if I believe my actions have been mistated?

Here you suggest I am somehow wrong for taking an accusation of strawmanning in bad faith. An accusation of intentional strawmanning, which is what O3000 accused me of at the WP:NPOVN discussion (link already present on this page, feel free to review) is by definition bad faith. How else would any other editor take this? This is a punitive and selectively enforced sanction, and based on largely innocuous replies to a single (long-time) editor behaving in a way I believe was being unnecessarily combative (see threads at NPOVN, AN). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you've refused to reconsider, and I'll indeed be appealing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'd suggest WP:AE but WP:AN is also an option. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, in the process of reviewing AE to prepare an appeal, I found that you described these diffs [12][13][14] by saying nothing approaching sanctionable here, only frustration about a very sensitive topic, which is understandable if not perfect behavior. The fact that you would apply a wholly different standard in this scenario and issue a 3-month topic ban for mild at best comments (in response to posts far worse) without a moment's hesitation is extremely questionable, especially given the fact that you're willing to write off this other editor's behavior as "understandable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even If you right I suggest not to go with the appeal. Please read WP:GAB and specifically WP:EBUR.There are plenty of other topics to edit on WP and take it as a lesson how to not get to this situation again. --Shrike (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Because getting frustrated in a discussion about the murder of a young person is understandable. You turning disputes into a battleground frequently over months is not. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 09:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to restore that text to the lead, you may be reported for edit warring. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Another editor removed it and suggested adding context before restoring it. I restored the text with the requested change. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add it again without clear consensus on that talk page. I think you haven't read the sources (all the sources, not only the ones you're using to support your position). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I only restored it because it seemed that the last removal was asking for a rephrasing. I agree re-adding it would be unproductive and I'm not going to. As far as sources, I have only named sources that were already used in the article before I made any changes (USA Today and New Statesman), except for the Eonline piece. Perhaps an RfC might be the best route forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since this is such a hot-button issue in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if your recent edits to this topic fall under your AP2 topic ban (as well as WP:ARBGG, about which I see you've been recently reminded). I've reverted you for now, and in fact I addressed your points in the archived NPOV/N discussion. Pinging TonyBallioni for clarification on the AP2 question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: There were no tags to American politics in the article or talk page, and the single sentence that I edited had to do with the opinions of a academic published in in the Health section of the Atlantic, solely on their views of this term. As to the sentence itself, we'll agree to disagree; there was no consensus against using this particular academic per WP:NEWSBLOG. I believe you are perhaps misconstruing WP:RS to require academic sources, rather than encourage them alongside others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for it either – I believe you are familiar with WP:ONUS. I stated my objections to the material at the NPOV noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Well, WP:ONUS is not a veto, but let's be clear—you reverted not just me in this instance, but EditSafe, and the two of you have been in a slow-moving edit-war since May, which resulted in page protection, and has signs of picking up again in July. I just happened to agree with this other editor on the content issue. There is no current American political controversy regarding this term that I'm aware of and the piece of the article/sources I am involved in discussing are solely academically oriented on a genderology/sociology concept, so I think it was unwarranted to suggest I'm editing violating my AP2 topic ban which expires in two weeks.

I understand that you explained your issues with the material but I and the other editor, who's been involved at this page longer than I, disagree, and I think there might be a more productive path than serially reverting each other. I know from an earlier discussion you suggested the source is "primary." It is appropriate to evaluate the 1) publication (or lack thereof), 2) author, 3) article itself, but it isn't isn't correct to say it was primary. See WP:NEWSBLOG. It was published in the Health section of the Atlantic, which RSP calls generally reliable. The author is a published academic and professor who's written on male violence. The piece itself is used as a citation to other factual content in the article, yet you are only objecting to inclusion of the opinionated elements of the piece. It does not need to be peer-reviewed to meet reliability criteria. You have a valid point on weight, but that is appropriately addressed by ensuring the content doesn't cover disproportionate space, not removing it entirely. It occupied a single sentence. The Salter column contributes to the overall balance of the article by offering different perspectives on the content, which is sorely needed IMO. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited NEWSBLOG and SELFPUB in support of this material, even though the source is neither. It's closest to an editorial or opinion piece. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". The source in which Salter states his opinion on how the term is used is primary for that statement of opinion. Calling Salter a "critic" or his statements "criticism" is also an original evaluation of the source, not a summary of it. If you want to include "criticism" of the term, find a reliable source that comments on the "criticism", not a source which you interpret to be criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there would be a more productive path, and that would be starting an RfC on either the talk page or noticeboard with a link to the earlier discussion. Feel free to to gain consensus that way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author cited a "problem" with how the term is applied. This can be appropriately summarized as a criticism, OR does not require that we copy sources word-for-word. As for an RfC, I think there's a time and a place for everything. I agree that an author's opinion column is a primary source for their opinion. Inclusion is a subjective issue; reliability is probably established. I'm not going to rehash my arguments from the NPOVN. Edit warring over this isn't called for, and I think it's kind of questionable that you confronted me and pinged an admin about an alleged TB violation when the article is clearly not within the scope of AP2. If I have anything more to add, I'll do it on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikieditor19920, I have attempted to raise this with you on the article talk page but despite making two other comments on that page you have not addressed my concerns. Why did you remove some of the recently added content from the History section and reinsert the issues tags for issues that were addressed by those recent additions? Cavalryman (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have no idea what you're referring to. If you can indicate to me what I removed and that you had a problem with, I'll reply more specifically. As for issues tags, they are to remain until there is a consensus that the issue is resolved. Here, it is neutrality. I applied the tag, explained why (others have voiced similar concerns on the talk page) and I do not see a consensus that neutrality was resolved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a close look at this diff, scroll down, you undid a number of additions to the history section. Why? Cavalryman (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That may have been a mistake. You can restore it. Apologies! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, thank you for the apology. Further, would you please remove the unnecessary piping to BSL in the lead as I did here? BSL is a neutral term, the current link gives the incorrect impression that this legislation is only aimed at pit bull-type dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Cavalryman: No, because I disagree. "Breed specific legislation" is a term used by pro-pitbull advocacy orgs as if there is something inherently wrong or discriminatory about it. The article references legislation against pit bulls, not other dogs, so it's irrelevant what other breeds might be affected by what legislation in that context. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lengthy discussion about this on the talk page, so I am informing you since you appear to be unaware. This is a BLP violation and the current consensus is not to add it. Please revert yourself and engage in the discussion on the talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: My edit strictly followed the sources. What is the BLP issue, exactly? The discussion is a bit difficult to follow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: If you are referring to the arrest warrant, 1) it is covered in reliable news outlets, 2) negative information is not by default a BLP violation. I see you've accused other editors in the same discussion of BLP violations. This is totally inappropriate. Whether reliably sourced information is fit for inclusion is an area where editors can disagree—everyone who disagrees with you is not violating policy, at least with regard to this piece of info. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement means keep it out per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look, thought about it, actually agree with keeping out the information about the warrant unless it is confirmed to have some relevance (police have confirmed it was unrelated to the arrest). I thought the above editor was suggesting my entire edit was problematic, when it looks like they just reverted that one piece.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not need a reminder about BLP discretionary sanctions as you had one a few days ago. That edit's content about the warrant was a significant violation of BLP (unsourced, not in the body of the article, and apparently untrue). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Look closer at the edits. I immediately removed the content about the arrest being linked to the warrant--that was mis-stated in a report I read. The other sentence noting that there was a warrant was factually accurate according to current news articles. That was also the only part of my latest edit that was challenged and which I since left alone—the majority of my changes were expansions to the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that now ([15]). Please be cautious when editing on topics like this regarding crimes, warrants, and the like. Thank you for removing it immediately. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do & agree, thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you must discuss your edits; you can't waive me a way with "you're a smart guy, figure it out".

Let's recap:

1. You removed a sentence from the lead with the edit summary Unverified claim, need excellent sourcing for this, which isn't provided. You said nothing in your edit summary about not having consensus for this to be in the lead. You were incorrect about it being an "unverified claim"; the content was verified in the body.
2. I reverted your removal with an edit summary responding directly to the "unverified claim" part: "this is a key part of the criminal charges; the content is sourced in the body"
3. You removed it again with the edit summary: Specific details alleged by the prosecution do not belong in the lead. We do not know what the key evidence is in the trial and should not purport to know. UNDUE Again, nothing about not having consensus, or ONUS.
4. I then asked you here why you aren't following BRD. You answered because ONUS wasn't satisfied; that the edits did not have consensus.
5. I showed you why I thought the content had consensus and ONUS was satisfied: that it had been stable for over two months and 250 edits, and it was the product of extensive editing two months ago, as well as extensive talk page discussion, all in talk page archive 1.
6. You said that you disagreed that this was consensus. You said I needed "specific consensus" and what I had was "general consensus".
7. I asked you what "specific consensus" meant and what the difference was between that and general consensus.
8. Your response was, "I'm sure you can figure it out, you seem like a smart guy." and then you deleted the thread from your talk page.

Sorry, but that's not satisfactory. If you're going to remove a sentence on the basis of "no consensus", and then when I show you what I think is consensus and you say "no that's not consensus", then you're going to have to say what you think is consensus, specifically, not just telling me to figure it out. Lev!vich 21:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: This aggressive and unrelenting questioning is getting out of hand. This is the last and final time I will spell this out, because you frankly seem unwilling to accept an explanation for an edit you do not agree with, and I'm not going to continue repeating myself all day.

1) WP:BRD is a general recommended practice, not a rule.

2) You have at no point, nor do I see on the talk page, a specific consensus for the line Based on these videos and witness reports, prosecutors claimed that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder. Rolfe was charged with felony murder and ten other offenses; Brosnan with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath..

3) A "general agreement" on the lead that you assert existed by the fact that a discussion took place and a settled version remained stable for some time does not either a) mean that no further changes or challenges can be made to specific aspects of the lead b) show that there is a consensus for that specific challenged sentence. A "general consensus" or stability of a section does not mean there is consensus for specific, contentious pieces of information in that section which may have been overlooked or discussed little (or not at all).

4) WP:ONUS, unlike WP:BRD, is a rule. And it sets a standard for inclusion, not exclusion. When I removed the sentence, I was challenging its inclusion. (I will discuss policy basis in next bullet point.) You should not have restored it at that point, and the second removal was justified. Again, the onus is on you to definitively show a consensus for the challenged material, the fact that it was supposedly "stable" before the challenge is irrelevant.

5) This content clearly goes against WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. There is an ongoing trial. This is a fact that has been asserted by the prosecution, and is unproven. Because it has been covered in news reports, it is included in the body of the article. However, emphasizing this unproven, negative, prejudicial detail in the lead is completely out of whack with the policies I just cited. The lead describes the nature of the charges, the event, and the active case. That is plenty sufficient detail, and we don't need to start highlighting the prosecutor's specific allegations to make their case, and especially not inflammatory and unproven ones.

6) As for your conduct, WP:SATISFY, WP:CIVIL. Basically everything I just laid out was already explained in the thread I removed from my talk page, as a signal to you that I had read your concerns and was done with the conversation. You do not need to agree with my edits, but you need to follow policy by not restoring contentious material w/o consensus and harassing me about it. If the content is that important to you, then make your case for restoration on the talk page. You cannot edit-war this content back into the article without consensus, and continuing to badger/interrogate me has absolutely nothing to do with that goal.

If you do make your case on the talk page of the article, I will gladly lay out my counter-points there and we can see whether consensus builds one way or the other from there. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 7) You bring up the fact that I deleted the discussion as if it was something negative. The discussion is recorded in the edit archives. It's not going anywhere. That was a signal to you that I was done with the discussion, and I'm entitled to delete or maintain any discussion on my page per WP:BLANK. You are not entitled to continue badgering me on my talk page when I've asked you not to. And to make this very clear: I'm asking you not to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking a thread that's clearly unresolved is likely to result in an escalation, which might not be to your advantage, Wikieditor. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: There's nothing left to resolve on my talk page, and I am not responsible for the conduct a user who continues to badger me about an edit I've long since offered a (perhaps overlY) detailed explanation for. There is apparently open content disagreement, and that can be resolved by consensus on the article talk page. I appreciate your interest but I don't need the additional input, thank you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to figure out how to get you to stop removing that sentence. You say "specific consensus for the line", and you keep using that term "specific consensus", but you're not explaining what that is. If two editors agree to keep the line in, is that specific consensus? Three editors? Four? A formal RFC open for 30 days closed by an administrator? Where is your goalpost? Lev!vich 00:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what part of my earlier request to stop interrogating me about this and take it to the article talk page wasn't clear, but I've opened a thread at ANI. You need to respect when an editor wants to disengage from a discussion on their user talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically told you not to ping me. Do not do so again. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit-warring at Andy Ngo. You are ignoring the input of multiple editors and restoring misleading statements into a BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPS who takes no sides. You can mute notifications from a particular user, even temporarily. Click the round gear symbol at the bottom of the notification box. -- GreenC 01:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at your edits would suggest, in good faith, that you consider the follow things. Please note none of these are content related things. First, if you have to add a citation to the lead, it means there is probably something missing from the body of the article. Ideally the lead should need no citations as every item in it should be a summary of what is discussed in the body of the article. Second, it's always helpful when discussing changes to be able to present things as before and after (with quotes if possible). That makes it easier for people to agree/disagree with a specific change as well as offer suggestions for tweaks before the text goes live. As a recent example, one of your changes to Andy Ngo. I generally agree with your lead changes but I think including the milkshake isn't significant. To me it comes across as trivial in comparison to his actual injuries and it's a detail of the assault rather than a summary. As such I don't see it needing to be in the lead. I'm certain someone will remove it at some point and people will look at your edits as needing constant revisions even if the general direction you are going is an improvement. OK, final thing, it's always best to avoid commenting on other posters or speculating on their motives. I can't recall if you specifically did this but I think a few of your posts were getting close. My personal POV is it's generally OK to say how an edit comes across but not OK to say the editor is pushing for that POV. This is important when editing contentious articles. People are likely to disagree with you but at least they won't be able to accuse you of incivility (which can lead to topic bans). Take these suggestions for the free, good faith suggestions they are. Springee (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee:, I have done no such thing. Perhaps you were referring to these comments, directed at me, by another user entirely:

• Summarize what sources are actually saying, not the parts you happen to find interesting.
• You added details, but I dispute that you added the necessary context for those details, nor do I accept that those details belong in the lead, nor do I accept that your summary was from a neutral point of view.

I briefly dismissed these remarks, and others, as inappropriate; I also noted several edits I believed to be BLP violations. At no point did I speculate on their motives. As for the lead; I don't necessarily disagree with your changes; I think it's relevant to discuss what type of injury occurred from the assault (a severe one reportedly) to give a sense of why it received such heavy coverage. But you are wrong about citations in the lead; they are permitted, and are encouraged with claims that have the potential to be challenged. MOS:LEADCITE. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the milkshake, it was heavily reported on, mostly because I think the image of Ngo doused with the milkshake was what articles used as "click bait." The image was jarring, and while you're correct about it not being the worst part of the attack that's been reported, it seemed to have been a focus of the story, perhaps just because it was unusual. I'm agnostic on this but it stuck out to me and was something I read consistently across a few articles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this as something you need to be defensive about. It wasn't meant to be that sort of comment. I think the general direction of your edits is good but I don't want to see you trip over the politics in a way that gives others an excuse to seek sanctions against you. (note:I started typing this after your initial reply but real life meant it didn't get posted until after your additional replies. ) Springee (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I appreciate the concern. I've got it covered. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.. which you're allowed to do. But if you call constructive editors trolls or the like again,[16] you are very likely to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Req I encouraged another editor not to reply to a comment I saw as pointed. I asked when it become customary to include a journalist's political affiliation in the lead. A reply by an editor was, along the lines of, "About the time when bloggers started calling themselves journalists." So there are two sides to every interaction. But I've removed my comment to avoid any possible misinterpretation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use quote marks when using words not actually posted. I'm generally concise and careful -- at least before dinner.:) O3000 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, then. I thought I indicated I was paraphrasing, but here was the full exchange:

And by the way, since when do we start identifying journalists' political views in the lead sentence? When did this become standard practice? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Possibly since we started calling political bloggers journalists. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I perceived this as a decidedly snarky remark, not a "constructive contribution" as how Bishonen deemed it, and apparently my suggesting another editor ignore it by facetiously citing WP:DFTT is being threatened as block-worthy. Since it looks as though we're suddenly taking ourselves very seriously, to reiterate, I've gone ahead and removed that part of my reply from the talk page and focused purely on the substance. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late to "encourage" a user not to reply to a comment they had already replied to, wasn't it? And facetiousness is no excuse for citing WP:DFTT. It doesn't come across in text. Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that the user responded is precisely why I encouraged them to ignore it. I think that was apparent from the discussion. But thanks for clarifying. As I said earlier, I've removed the comment precisely to avoid misinterpretation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request relating to your entirely-unsupported attack on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Excuse me? You mean an editorial disagreement about whether the subject belongs in a certain cat? What nonsense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, @Guerillero:. I've made periodic changes to that page along with most other users, and my most recent one was to remove a phrase for which there wasn't consensus and a paragraph that's still contested. FYI, it was restored by another user who has repeatedly restored that same challenged content. I'll wait for the discussion to play out, but I've been asking for a "consensus required" DS at that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I have full protected the article. If edit warring resumes, I will seriously consider a consensus is required restriction --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping the tone of discussions can become more civil at Andy Ngo. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: It would be helpful if you started with your own comments, rather than constantly threatening to escalate disagreements with others. I've posted my reply. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could just tone it down a little. Bacondrum (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: You could tone it down. Half of your comments or more at that talk page are criticisms or knocks against other editors rather than comments on content. Now you're raising a stink at ANI. Stop creating unnecessary drama. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikieditor19920, I've reverted your edit to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and wanted to let you know why in case you haven't seen my edit summary. The current wording, "false", is under intense discussion on the article talk page and there are currently several sections discussing wording, including an RfC. I'd appreciate it if you could wait for a consensus to be found before making this change, perhaps you could offer your two cents on the talk page? Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr8825: OK thanks for the heads up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way you repeat your points over and over in this RFC, and altogether go on and on on that talkpage, is probably, per WP:AGF, not intended to exhaust everybody else and make them give up, but you should understand that it nevertheless has that effect. Everybody else at the RFC may not be perfectly polite, but I don't see anybody else bludgeoning the discussion the way you are. In other words, replying to me with "But what about editors X, Y and Z?" won't earn you any points with me. Please rein yourself in or you're likely to be sanctioned. Once you have made an argument, it doesn't need to be rehashed over and over, and persisting in having the last word isn't as valuable as you think. Bishonen | tålk 14:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]