User talk:Korny O'Near

ă

Discretionary sanctions alerts

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-1932 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.

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.

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 climate change. 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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 22:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sun Sentinel

Re: renaming Sun-Sentinel, see the prior name change proposals on Talk:Sun-Sentinel. Renaming the article should be proposed via Template:Requested move, if you wish to do so. - Donald Albury 16:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Dinesh D'Souza that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit summary.[1] You should know better than that. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you actually removed it, but then, I don't think it was all that uncivil. Is it because I didn't assume good faith? You didn't assume good faith either, in the comment you made to me a week ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It was an edit summary - not eligible for revision/deletion. " please make sure that your apparent deep dislike of Dinesh D'Souza is not clouding your editorial judgment" is definitely showing a lack of good faith as well as being an inappropriate edit summary. Yes, I made a mistake and accepted your explanation. That's not an excuse for your edit summary. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tucker Carlson without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ixocactus (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about this edit? I had a pretty long edit summary there. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on No-go area

Your recent editing history 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently

Please read WP:RELTIME which explains why you should avoid using words such as "currently" in your edits. -- 109.79.162.197 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Korny O'Near (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Is this a mistake? I don't understand this at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were unambiguously edit warring at No-go area. You were warned, and you've been previously blocked twice for edit warring. There's no mistake. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I only made two reverts on that article in the last week; and I've only ever been blocked once before. Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You've inserted substantially the same content six times in the past twelve days, and you've been blocked twice before for edit-warring. You've been blocked this time for gaming 3RR by spacing out your reverts. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you are talking about me. But I'm almost positive that I've only been blocked once before. And whatever it means to "game" 3RR, that wasn't my intention, and I don't think I ever came close to that. And the last edit I made was the revert of a deletion of sections on two countries, Sweden and Poland - and there seemed to be a consensus that Poland, at least, should stay in the article. Plus, these edits didn't happen in a vacuum - I was active on the talk page, like here, the whole time. (A perusal of that talk page will show that there's no consensus either way on the inclusion of Sweden.) Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your block log [2] Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Come on! Quite the contrary, there is no consensus for your changes whatsoever, particularly Poland, that was first added by now perm-ban user who performed a broad "coat rack" tricks on multiple articles. Clearly you forgot about this discussion. [3] I think once your block is completed just raise your doubts on the talk page again and work to get some consensus with a wider editor representation (good luck with that). This ridiculous article is so questionable that I already get neurotic goosebumps when even I look at it.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion - okay, thanks; I completely forgot about that first block (I still have no memory of it).

GizzyCatBella - I have no idea who originally added the "Poland" section. I know a different user re-added it, before someone else deleted it without discussion. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fox News and Trump

Fox News has been accused of misinformation/downplaying of the coronavirus by its anchors, pundits, and guests, and I'm pretty sure the president himself (who we know for a fact is an avid viewer,especially of its morning show.) definitely counts as a guest if he's doing an interview with, say, Hannity. It's very intertwined with Trump's overall strategies, Fox is basically being an enabler for them by allowing him airtime. Plus Trump basically forcing the media to air a clip from a Fox News program as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think interviewing the President of the United States can count as a controversial move for a news outlet. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Art Laffer

Hey thanks for your opinion on the Art Laffer RFC. Sadly, the other editor involved seems hell bent on picking a fight and deleted my attempt at a compromise. I have re-added my proposed edit and, if you are willing, would appreciate your input. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good - but then again, I already said there that any wording that doesn't include "falsely" is probably fine with me. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions on Michael Flynn

This edit[4] is a violation of the editing restrictions on the page. You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, and it's a blatant disregard for consensus. Korny O'Near please self-revert immediately so that we don't have to sort this at WP:AE. - MrX 🖋 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine... there's no consensus either way, by the way, but sure, let's discuss on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hartley Sawyer

The forum post came from a Russian IP who has been bouncing around posting commentary on current events, claiming to be a logged-out admin, and generally stirring controversial pots. They're not up to anything good, and I'm blocking them as I encounter them. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Okay, then. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Flynn

Editors are doing you the courtesy of warning you to self-revert and back away from edit-warring. I hope you will do as they are asking. Otherwise you're likely to end up with a substantial block or tban. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What edit-warring are you talking about? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

[5] - this. On the talk page, I already objected twice to the WSJ opinion piece being worded as is, and I objected twice to the New York Post and the National Review. I objected once to the first sentence not being cited. You added the disputed material back without addressing any of my above concerns. starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the material I added addressed some of those concerns, by adding in additional references, and also did some rewording - I think the text was different enough that it wasn't a revert. I also addressed others of the concerns in the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history 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. Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in an edit war. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Morrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rocket Man.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Maximilian (miniseries) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Maximilian (miniseries), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is surprising. The article already has three citations - how many more does it need? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speaking Canaries

This edit cracked me up. True, though that is a great album. I used to (kind of) know Damon, he gave me a copy one night he grabbed from his car after an animated conversation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I'd never heard of this group, although I do know Don Caballero's music. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know Speaking Canaries via Don Cabellero; Mike, Don's original guitarist, approached me in a college class when he saw me wearing a King Crimson t-shirt; we hung out for a bit and exchanged music finds (he turned me onto Big Black, among others). Lots of great memories from those days. I assume you like Battles as well? I've never seen them live, but I saw Ian play in Storm & Stress a few times. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you have a lot of connections! I do like Battles; I didn't realize there was a Don Caballero connection. Back when I was listening to those kinds of bands, I was listening a lot to bands like Joan of Arc too - I don't know if you've heard of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Heard of Joan of Arc, but surprisingly they escaped my radar back then; has that post-rock vibe I like. I largely depended on the record store clerks at the places I haunted for new leads; "hey, I love this album, who else should I check out?" Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black

Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Maximilian (miniseries)

Hello, Korny O'Near. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Maximilian".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Your recent editing history at Hartley Sawyer 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.
I'm not sure why you want to whitewash Sawyer's article, but no. You don't have consensus for your changes. Jorm (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus? The consensus seems to be clearly on my side, since the wording was more or less the same for nine months (June 2020 to March 2021), until you went to change it. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

You acknowledge the article text you deleted is widely verified by RS, but you delete it ra th er than improve the citations? I remind you this article is under Discretionary Sanctions. Instead of edit warring, please self revert and add whatever additional source you feel is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What specifically are you talking about? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your rv of my reinstatement of text you removed. Review your own past 2 hours edits and edit summaries. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, this edit. I wouldn't call it a deletion - it was a change of wording. Your wording, that Carlson's statements were "widely condemned", is not backed up by the sources cited, which mention just two people who condemned it: journalist Philip Bump and the head of the ADL. (And actually, Bump's column was more a criticism than a condemnation.) So no, it's not true, and I don't know where you think I acknowledged it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Project Runway (franchise) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Project Runway (franchise), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sports

Hi i am currently working on Draft:List of most expensive sports films just wondering if ypu want to give me a hand P+T Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maximilian (miniseries) has been accepted

Maximilian (miniseries), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on COVID-19 misinformation. 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. I strongly suggest you take up further objections to the current text on the article talk page. Multiple editors have objected to your recent changes, and you are already at the maximum of 3 reverts (per WP:3RR) - note that you may be blocked from editing, if an admin so judges, even if you don't break the limit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not at the maximum, although I think you are - see 1, 2, 3. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ryan O'Flanagan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ryan O'Flanagan, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

How is this possible? Every sentence in the article is referenced, and with a reliable source. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ryan O'Flanagan (June 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Korny O'Near! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2021 (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 complementary and alternative medicine. 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.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at talk:Snake oil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I said "it doesn't seem like you've given this that much thought" - which is a mild insult at best, but sorry if I offended you. Speaking of transgressions, following around an editor from one article to another, which is what you did with me, is known as wikihounding, and it's frowned upon. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Snake oil. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Y'know I've actually had that page on my watch list ever since I joined WikiProject Skepticism in 2016. I am sorry for any appearance of hounding you, and I am not interested in doing so. We appear to have similar editing interests, so we should probably learn to work together.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. No, I don't think we have similar editing interests. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You are the bestest editor I have ever since my all 27 lives and through my last astral travel :) Keep up the great work! V. E. (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenn Kessler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

1RR violation on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

This edit was a revert in that it removed a tag; this edit was a revert in that it removed several sentences. Unfortunately the article is under a 1RR restriction, which makes trying to reach a compromise in the article itself fairly difficult, but you should self-revert the edits in the last diff for now. Just as a note, since it's clear there's no agreement on how to word things (or whether to have it all), I'm probably going to blanket-revert back to the last stable version in a day or so unless some sort of clear consensus emerges on talk; trying to edit it out in the article isn't working and is too tricky with the 1RR on account of how easy it is to violate it accidentally. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a strange way to count reverts; that first edit removed a tag that was no longer relevant because it referred to wording that was removed by another editor - that's not a revert, it's an obvious fix. By my count, the 1RR rule was indeed broken, though - not by me, but by that other editor, Soibangla (1, 2, 3). Korny O'Near (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AP discretionary sanctions notification

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.

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo 1RR

User KON: you have made extensive changes to the Andy Ngo article today without any discussion at talk. Please slow down and discuss the aspects that you disagree with. You have also violated the 1RR restriction at Andy Ngo by removing the same content twice within a 24 hour period. Please self revert to avoid being reported for the violation. Cedar777 (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I self-reverted; I didn't realize that this was a 1RR article. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please check and verify that was your only violation. You are rather hyperactive on that article, and it might be a good idea as Cedar says to slow down. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:MYOB. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It is the business of all editors on that page to ensure that the page sanctions are followed. Anyone can report a violation, and that's an outcome I would have thought you'd prefer to avoid. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dreaming of You (Selena song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Title track.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Small group of editors

Hi Korny O'Near, I want to discuss an issue I have with one of your recent comments. You said "There's now a small group of editors apparently working to keep this information out of the article - they're some of the same editors who fought at certain points to keep other such relevant information out before." To me this seems like a fairly WP:ASPERSIONy and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy way to say "Some people disagree with me." I would describe my concern as a minor one, but given the DS in this contentious topic area, I submit that both you and others would benefit if you can "focus on content" more, especially on article talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of international Project Runway spinoffs has been accepted

List of international Project Runway spinoffs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert - gender-related disputes

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Brandon Brown

Hi there, I see that you restored the original "Let's Go Brandon" paragraph on the BB article. Another user broke the 3RR rule on that page, and is adamant on removing it for some reason. I previously added some sources to it, and from what I can tell, it's perfectly valid in the article. Not sure if you want to get involved or anything. I've been told to stay away from the Admin's Noticeboard. Not sure if a talk page discussion will be sufficient, given that the user's last edit summary said that the policy brought forward allows for the content to be removed "without discussion". Cheers. Cable10291 (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of reporting people, unless there's really no alternative. I just started a talk page discussion; let's see what happens. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan

Hello, Korny O'Near. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ryan O'Flanagan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brandon Brown (racing driver). 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. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Does one revert now count as an edit war? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And another edit war of an unnecessarily repeated word at Time Out (album). Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Everybody Plays the Fool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Neville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously [6]. You should see the discussion here [7]. A lot of the same.

I don't know what you're talking about. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess the intended tone was lost in the web. I see your confusion in the first link. I share a similar frustration with that editor based on my discussions at the second link. Springee (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh! Now I get it. Yeah, some people seem to view Wikipedia talk pages as just another Twitter, basically. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

may 2022

i pray for you is billed as a clipse song, pusha confirmed it Nickiandyeoutsold (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Where did you see that? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Julia Roberts as member of Lovett's Large Band

I Love Everybody

She did background vocals on this LP and is credited with being in the band; check it out. I will do a revert on your edit. Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Where do you see evidence that she's credited as being in the band? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

She did background vocals on this LP and is credited with being in the band; though it was for a short time, check it out. I will do a revert on your edit; i will not get into a "war" over this and, only make 1 revert. How do you wish to define members of the band if not by being credited with contributing music to the LP? As far as I can tell, there is no other definition. Lovett was very proud of his Large Band, and artists came and went frequently thru it. Some on only 1 LP; check that out as well. Even if only once they considered them a member, even for just that appearance. [[User:Mwinog2777|Mwinog2777]] ([[User talk:Mwinog2777|talk]]) 17:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid we won't likely get Lovett to answer this question.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep this conversation to Talk:Julia Roberts, instead of having it in both places. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There was no formal band with formal listing; simply people coming and going thru the years; if you find a formal list, let me know. The band were the people who were in it at the time of the recording; some were in once, check it out, and some were repeaters. Some like Ray Herndon, were in many times, but not all. He had a band, it was called the Lyle Lvett Large band. Yes, he did. There was never a formal listing of permanent band members, because there were very few if any, on every recording. I don't think there were any. At this point I will retire from this discussion, and leave it up to you. If you play 1 major league baseball game, you a major leaguer for life. If you win a lottery, you are a lottery winner... etc., etc.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential page of interest

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruption by User:CreecregofLife was created today. Feel free to share your experiences if you want before they close it Anon0098 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

NPA

If you can't see why this [[8]] did not violate a number of policies, including wp:npa I suggest you read [[wp:soap] and wp:TALK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There's some strong language there, but I don't see anything there that violates any specific policies. What did I miss? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"It is entirely appropriate to address you directly here on this page, for any intelligent reader can see from the material that is already here, let alone the deletions in the history, that wikipedia policies are being grossly abused in the bullying of other potential contributors and the prejudicial presentations." might be seen as violating "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." as can "It is clear to me, having read this talk page, and having read your personal talk page, that you have an agenda and distort wikipedia policies to suit your agenda." (which may also violate "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"). "Alas, maybe I can get through to a man who seems to use precisely the tactics that WP:NOTDUMB and Civil POV pushing, as well as other policies try to prohibit. Indeed Mr. Slater, it seems to me you are WP:Wikilawyering" also violates our rules about not making serious accusations.

As well as the PA's much of this is a screed against (what it claims is "in service to the current vogue for neo-liberal propagandist language (neo-conservative propaganda is equally anathema) degrade the credibility of the wikipedia as a general reference source. ", as well as " I have concluded that many who scream 'racist' most loudly are, in fact the most racist among us, or worse, they are the true fascists: utterly intolerant of views that deviate even slightly from their own." (which also violate the rules against "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view". Which violate wp:soap .

As the first line of NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". How much of that comment would be left if I took about all the personal comnemnts? Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this listing. I wouldn't have personally said any of these things, but I'm also not sure that any of these examples are direct violations of the policies you listed. (I don't think that "screaming 'racist'" counts as an affiliation, for example.) These are all fairly borderline cases. In my view, the best action is just to ignore the screeds and move on. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you are making the most of this learning opportunity, Korny. restoring personal attacks on Talk pages isn't a good look for you, even if you wouldn't have personally have said any of these things (might you have said them "impersonally"?). WP:CIR, even when managing content on contentious Talk pages, and multiple other editors have now clearly indicated that this content was over the line. I trust you will show more care in future, so as to minimize disruption to the project. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by pointing out WP:CIR - am I incompetent, or the other person, or both? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're asking me whether it is more of a CIR issue to place NPA violations on a Talk page, or to reinstate them after removal, I'm afraid I don't have a ready answer to that. Either would be problematic if they represented a pattern of behavior IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so both I and the other guy are incompetent, got it. I just have to point out the irony of making personal attacks against two people in the midst of defending the sanctity of talk pages from personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you deny that there is such a thing as a person who is incompetent to edit Wikipedia? Likely not. So it is not impossible that any single editor might be one of those, and the strength of an assertion of incompetence is an empircal matter as to verification of fact. It is not on its face a personal attack. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

That's true, there are people who are too incompetent to edit Wikipedia - just like, to paraphrase the original talk page guy, I'm sure there are Wikipedia editors who "scream 'racist' while also being racist". But to call someone either of those directly is indeed a personal attack, even if it's true - a mild one, in my opinion, that's not worth deleting, but still a personal attack. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I am no longer confident that I know to whom you are referring, but just so that we are clear: I never called you anything. I have scrupulously commented on the content, not the contributor, when discussing past edits. I am of course encouraging personal growth in future. :) Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, and I hope you're making the most of this learning opportunity. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a small comment

Regarding this, the allegation that x is involved with Antifa/BLM, is indeed a right wing conspiracy theory, usually associated with the "false flag" subset of Alex Jones, QAnon, and Trump. For one of many examples, you can see how Fox and other news outlets spread the conspiracy theory that the Jan 6 attempted coup and insurrection was not perpetrated by Trump supporters, but Antifa/BLM protesters dressed up as Trump supporters. It isn’t clear to me if your edits improved the article or not, but the claim that x is Antifa/BLM is most defiantly a known conspiracy theory. Also, you somewhat weakened the text by inserting weasel words (some users) in place of conspiracy theories. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow - are you saying that calling anyone Antifa- or BLM-affiliated is a conspiracy theory? What if it's just one person - where's the conspiracy? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Korny, there is an entire subset of right wing conspiracy theories that deal solely with blaming Antifa/BLM for false flags. There are right wing people, groups, politicians, and media outlets specifically associated with this claim. I could probably write an entire dissertation on this topic alone. Are you saying you’re not familiar with this subject? If you aren’t, that’s fine, but it could take me some time to give you an entire background history on it. It’s also somewhat complex, as it involves many different types of groups. For example, a lot of fuel for this conspiracy theory came from extremist groups like the boogaloo movement, who advocated for going to Antifa/BLM protests, dressing up like them, and causing damage to property and engaging in violent acts. There’s even documented police reports demonstrating this happened. Every accusation they make is an admission. This is an old Roy Cohn tactic that Trump and the alt right use against their enemies. They are the ones doing exactly what they are accusing Antifa and BLM of doing. This is part of a larger tactical strategy called far-right accelerationist terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There may be conspiracy theories related to alleging that people are involved with Antifa or BLM - but that doesn't mean that every allegation of someone being involved with Antifa or BLM is a conspiracy theory. In the case of the Whitmer kidnapping plot, I don't see how it adds up to a conspiracy theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s a standard right wing conspiracy theory about Antifa/BLM:

Conspiracy theories about the alleged plot emerged on social media, falsely claiming the Wolverine Watchmen were anarchists affiliated with the antifa and Black Lives Matter movements. Some social media posts promoting the theories were flagged by Facebook as part of its anti-misinformation campaign, while PolitiFact rated the posts as "Mostly False".

This theory is used repeatedly by right wing conspiracy theorists to deflect blame and responsibility from their acts. In the case of the Jan. 6 attempted coup and insurrection, it was used hundreds of times by right wing politicians and media outlets to deflect any blame from Trump supporters. This is no different. It’s clearly and quite obviously the same conspiracy theory. More disturbingly, it’s a strongly held belief adhered to by 50% of Republicans, indicating that they have replaced logic, reason, data, and evidence, with an ideology based solely on conspiracies. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

So, in the case of the Wolverine Watchmen, what specifically is the conspiracy being theorized? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The "theory" is that Antifa/BLM is trying to false flag the right wing. In addition to being promoted by right wing pundits and politicians, there is additional evidence that this is part of an active measures campaign by Russian intelligence. See also Russia and Black Lives Matter. The more important takeaway is that Republicans are promoting Russian-made conspiracies. There is a lot of evidence supporting this idea in general. Several studies have found that many of the most popular Republican conspiracy theories, including QAnon, may be homegrown, but Russian trolls will pick and choose which to amplify on social media. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the fact that, in the midst of warning about conspiracy theory, you're bringing up a conspiracy theory involving Russian intelligence - other than to note that it's amusing. But as for the Wolverine Watchmen: is the theory that they were Antifa/BLM-affiliated, while pretending to not be? If so, that is indeed a conspiracy theory - but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. And I haven't seen any of the original Facebook, etc. posts. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Russia and BLM? It’s not a conspiracy theory. There’s an enormous amount of evidence regarding how these claims and conspiracy theories are amplified on social media. Again, it’s possible you aren’t aware of how this works, which is why you think it’s a conspiracy. I’ve already addressed the rest, as you and I are repeating ourselves at this point. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we're repeating ourselves with this: I really would like to know whether the theory being spread on Facebook, etc. was that the Wolverine Watchmen were secretly or openly Antifa/BLM-related. The former is a conspiracy theory, while the latter is not, so that makes all the difference. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were truly confused by this. The conspiracy theory in question clearly (always) hinges on the x groups being accused as being secret members of y. It’s always been this way. How would it make sense at all if the members were open about it? I’m very confused by your thought process. Two linked samples of this conspiracy theory in the article are highlighted by PolitiFact:

1. "Notice how the Whitmer kidnapping story disappeared after we found out the perps were ANTIFA and BLM anarchists," one post says.

2. "Antifa members arrested for plotting to kidnap a governor," another post says. "13 Antifa members ARRESTED for trying to KIDNAP Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to START A CIVIL WAR."

This is exactly how I described it in my previous post. I’m curious how you’ve missed the dozens of iterations of this conspiracy theory in the last several years. It’s been all over the news, discussed by scholars, and the topic of discussion by researchers in almost every major publication. Please also notice how it is the exact same conspiracy theory that Antifa and BLM are behind the Jan. 6 violence. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Which of those two quotes indicate that the Facebook users thought the Wolverines were Antifa/BLM, but pretending not to be? I don't see that in either quote. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Some even baselessly assert that the Michigan investigation was a test run for what they claim was a false flag operation conducted on Jan. 6." [9] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shibbolethink - that's a good try, but I'm pretty sure the false flag allegation there is FBI agents pretending to be right-wing extremists, rather than Antifa/BLM pretending to be right wing extremists. Anyway, the article doesn't say, I think, so we can't be sure. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"that's a good try" is what I would describe as a patronising comment, verging on incivility. For someone who represents themselves as a neutral editor more concerned with policies and guidelines, this is unbecoming, in line with recent instances where you failed to see consensus or reason. Please be more mindful of this in the future. I would summarize the article as describing the entire affair (investigation, court case, and kidnapping) as a proposed false-flag. But we may have to agree to disagree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Twin films

Thank you for attention to keeping the list tidy. Just catching up with a few weeks of changes, glad you're removing unnecessary words though I would like to know what James Bond stories would read like if Fleming had written some of them in verse. JesseRafe (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice the word "prose" in the part I took out! Yeah, the lack of James Bond poetry is a real loss. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Disretionary sanction alert vis-a-vis the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Personal question!

Without getting too specific, may I ask where you're from in New York State? I grew up in the Southern Tier, and though I live far away now, still have a lot of nostalgia for the place. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, and I apologize that I'd rather not say, because I'm trying to stay anonymous for now. I will say I'm not from the Southern Tier, though I have visited Binghamton a few times. But I share your love for the state. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all--perfectly understandable. Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

GENSEX DS Alert

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

Madeline (part of me) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Talk:Libs of TikTok

Your recent editing history at Talk:Libs of TikTok 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

For anyone who's curious, this is what this supposed edit war is about. Two users (well, maybe just one at this point) want to add the word "allegedly" into a section header I created, apparently not aware that if you have quote marks around a term, you don't need to also put "allegedly" before it. That's the important dispute going on right now. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring... again

As the preceding thread is also an edit warring notice, and not the only one on this page, I won't bother posting another one. As there are still issues to be resolved, I would suggest you self-revert and then use the talk page, instead of back-and-forth edit summaries to commumicate. There are is a potential copyright issue with the image in question, and that aside, your contention that the image you added is "clearly better" is your personal preference. There are obvious problems with it and as such, the "better" picture should be decided by consensus. - wolf 17:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

"Better" is not really a matter of opinion here, is it? Here is the edit being discussed. The article is Harry Bosch, and the question is whether it's better to have a photo of Titus Welliver in character as Harry Bosch or simply a photo of the actor. Unless there's some major technical issue with the former (there isn't), there's no way the latter photo is better. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your opinion is well-noted (if not well-supported). - wolf 18:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

One actually is an image of Harry Bosch, the other isn't - there's no way this is just a matter of opinion. If that doesn't convince you, how about the fact that the image from the TV series was in place in the article for (apparently) years before you changed it, without explanation, a few days ago? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

That might mean something if the article was viewed or edited more than it is. It's a pretty quiet page, have you even bothered to look at the stats? - wolf 21:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Five reverts in 24 hours...

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libs of TikTok. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but only two of those five edits were reverts. Next time you try to get me banned, you should check more carefully. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

Just a word to the wise, your recent edit strikes me as a second revert within 24 hours -- I don't intend to take any action on it and don't think it was any sort of grave sin, but wanted to give you a "heads up." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This? It's not a revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is why I thought it worth bringing to your attention. The nomenclature is unnecessarily confusing, but per WP:3RR, An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It need not be an "undo," or the like. And if you're right about no more 1RR, then of course you can safely disregard. Also, apologies for the back-and-forth; I thought I had somehow accidentally removed your comment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just me being a curmudgeon again, as you've clearly made two reverts today and the page is still under 1RR -- again, I am not bothered at all, but just wanted to be sure you were aware in case someone else is. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so... do you mean this? Does every deletion count as a revert? Korny O'Near (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It does if it is another editor's text being deleted, so in effect yes. I know it is terribly confusing terminology, but see my quoted definition above. I think you're fine letting this one go, but forewarned is forearmed, just in case. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Is that really true? If so, it would mean that no one is allowed to delete more than three things from any article on any one day - which is a rule that's broken all the time, I would think. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The key is that it can be a "series of edits." So if you delete something, and no one intervenes, you can delete something else, ad infinitum. It's only when another editor steps in that the chain is broken. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for acting the schoolmarm! Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, thank you - that was helpful. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FT/N

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:38BA:9EC8:F884:8AB0 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit. That wasn't a personal attack, it was a comment on what I felt was improper behavior - the same thing you're trying to do right now, by the way. Read the comments above mine there, and tell me whether they were attempts "to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream" (to quote the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard header), or whether they were attempts to get like-minded editors to join them in policiing certain articles. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures (TV series) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures (TV series), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series), is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, click the Submit the draft for review! button atop the article. Silikonz💬 18:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Slow edit warring on Libs of TikTok

Just because you're self-reverting to stay within the bright line of 1RR does not mean you're not engaging in edit warring on Libs of TikTok. 1RR is not a license to wait exactly 24 hours and make another revert, it's to keep the article somewhat stable while changes are discussed on the talk page. Please keep this in mind as you edit the article, especially as you already have three blocks for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't actually been edit warring, slow or otherwise, in that none my most recent edits have been reverted (yet?). Given that, I actually don't think I need to follow the 24-hour rule for my edits - but I figured I would, just to be safe. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Red pilled

Hello. Apologies, but way too many changes at once, especially changing the lead from a focus of the topic to the film. The lead wording worked well. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is the change to the intro the only part of this edit you object to? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The See also should also stay the same. As for the rest, except the lead which seems fine as is, there really is too much to keep good track of it. Why don't you put your text back if you feel it covers everything (but not total emphasis on the film, the concept has become larger as a societal meme and separate from the film) and I'll check it out as well as give others a chance to study the changes. I can tell you put a lot of work into it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Libs Of TikTok) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I warned you about the slow edit warring on Libs of TikTok and the behavior continued. continuing an editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, continuing annother editing dispute from before the protection without affirmative consensus, reverting another editor, continuing the same dispute from the last diff, another revert with no discussion. I thought the warning was clear, but it seems not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Korny O'Near (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the additional explanation. You linked to 4 reverts I made; the 2nd one, I would argue, did in fact have consensus on my side, and the 4th one was a revert of a new and unexplained change. But I'll grant that the other two edits were contentious. Whether that's enough to justify a block, I would dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is enough to justify a block. Yamla (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You can still edit the talk page, and if consensus for your proposals exist then another editor can make the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You are now subject to topic bans

Based on this discussion at ANI, you are now indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, as well as post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. You can appeal these topic bans after six months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If the Tranarchist, Newimpartial, and your ANI are any indication of the atmosphere in the topic area, I recommend not appealing in six months. I'd give it a few years, as I know I'm less inclined to enforce content policy, and BLP policy there. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A friendly word of advice

Hi, we haven't interacted before, but when I got dragged to ANI for my talk-page brainstorming, I couldn't help but notice your situation next-door. As I'm sure you've realized, WP has a leftist/establishment bias which permeates controversial articles here. You seem to be "fighting the good fight" by trying to "restore balance" and fairly represent the other side. However, I assure you that this is an exercise in futility, a losing battle, like running up a down escalator or bailing out the Titanic. This is because of the RS policy: WP simply summarizes what the "Reliable Sources" have to say, and treats them as authoritative. Of course, the sources accepted as RS tend to be establishment/leftist, which means the bias is hard-coded into this project. There's really no way around this without rebooting the whole thing from a content mirror with a new community & policies.

I realize that you're currently blocked, and when that wears off, you can't discuss current politics without violating the ban. However, I thought this insight would be of use to you. take it e-z. Xcalibur (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, we all know that Reality has a well known liberal bias. Wes sideman (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure your 2cents is helpful here, @Wes sideman. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I shouldn't try to be slightly humorous, you're right. I'm probably better off sticking to statements like BigDan201 or Xcalibur made below, such as "'Neutral Point of View' is leftist". Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you're better off just staying away from the user talk of someone who just got blocked/t-banned after complaining about you. It might be seen as gravedancing or trolling. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-wishes. Whatever the problems are with the current RS policy, I don't think it applies to me, because I'm not aware of any case when I didn't cite reliable sources when making edits to politics- or gender-related pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

For sure. That always helps, but it can still be like swimming upstream. Ultimately some problems are too large and entrenched to be solved. Xcalibur (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not RS it is NPOV. If you didn't know that before, now you do. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

People had all sorts of chances during the discussion to point to an edit of mine that introduced bias, but in my opinion no one ever did. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I should've mentioned that the "Neutral Point of View" is establishment/leftist, which makes it impossible to represent the other side. RS are relevant in that the majority of them tend to shape NPOV. Xcalibur (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How can it be both establishment/leftist when the prevailing establishment view is right of center? Wikipedia's problem with the dominance of the establishment view (that of wealthy white men in the global north) is a completely different problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish: what diffs in the ban proposal are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting question - I never thought to do a count, but I just did, and it looks like, in the original discussion, 32 people weighed in with some sort of opinion, and of those, 14 (one of which was an IP address) thought I should be banned from editing American politics-related topics. ScottishFinnishRadish considered this "clear consensus" for an American politics topic ban. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing on a brief run-through at that discussion is that pretty much everyone who specified added AmPol to the mix. Some folks simply !voted support, but if they mentioned GENSEX they were highly likely to also mention AmPol. I think this close was justifiable. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Is that how votes on Wikipedia work now - you can just sort of guess at what people were thinking? Besides the strangeness of that argument, one obvious counter-argument is that the people who didn't support it had no reason to specify anything. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The person closing doesn't count. They assess. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll go back to responding here, as I misunderstood the question initially. As I explained in the close, with the type of disruption that there was consensus was happening there are generally not a lot of smoking gun style diffs. The editing on Libs of TikTok, which sits at a confluence of GENSEX and AP was cited by a number of editors. Googleguy007 provided a number of diffs dealing with American Politics, with Aquillion providing a couple more for context, and more later. As this wasn't at AE, where it should have been, the closer has to assess the consensus of editors taking part in the discussion, and how participants viewed the diffs and other evidence presented, not their own views, as an admin would at AE. This is also why the tbans are logged at WP:RESTRICTIONS, rather than the arb enforcement log.

This is a significant drawback of ANI, and unfortunately I'm not in a position to change how that works. You may have noticed that I mentioned in the middle of the discussion that it should have been at AE, and brought that up again in the close. I think we've lost too many editors recently that should have just been put "on notice," or otherwise warned, so they would have an opportunity to address community concerns, and grow as editors. That outcome is better for everyone because we'll have more editors doing better work in contentious topic areas. Again, I can't unilaterally decide "although consensus is X, I don't think that is the best way forward, so I'm not doing it." There are currently some discussions about how to possibly help the issues around CTOP and ANI, but as usual change is hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back from discussing it on my talk page. The clarified question is "what diffs, supplied by the AMPOL2 accusers, in the ban proposal, are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" The diffs in the lists you mention (from 17:59, 8 March 2023 and 23:30, 8 March 2023) would all fit in GENSEX broadly construed, except these two talk-page comments re Jordan Peterson 7 July 2022 and 7 October 2022. So those are the Diffs that answer my question? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Many are diffs that cover both. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a significant overlap in gensex and AP topics. [10][11][12][13] There's a few that clearly apply to AP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It is precisely because I am aware that I asked repeatedly about diffs that are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX because any item that is both AMPOL2 and GENSEX is covered by a GENSEX topic ban and so doesn't add any justification of an additional AMPOL2 topic ban. And three of the four diffs you're listing now are Libs Of Tik Tok i.e. part of GENSEX broadly construed, which leaves only the talk page comments re Jordan Peterson. Although he is Canadian and the disputed article of the July 7 talk page comment was "Jordan's Gospel of Masculinity", I'd accept a claim that's American politics and not about gender|sex. So, okay, the talk page comments re Jordan Peterson are the relevant part of your answer, I thank you for answering. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree here - I don't see how discussion of Jordan Peterson relates to American politics, since, as noted, he's Canadian - and he's also not a politician. @ScottishFinnishRadish: you linked to this diff, which is about Jordan Peterson's comments on Elliot Page, i.e. a Canadian psychologist criticizing a Canadian actor. How that's actually about American politics, I don't know.

All the rest of the diffs you cited are from the Libs of TikTok article - which factors in to my theory that ultimately that page is the sum total, or nearly so, of the issue. Again, only a minority of people in that vote thought I should be banned from writing about American politics. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I just had another opportunity to go over the close in the course of warning another editor in hopes to avoid yet another topic ban, and I should have specified the AP topic ban had a rough consensus, rather than the clear consensus that the gensex ban had. I'm trying to be more proactive with the warnings and early interventions to avoid more of these topic bans, as the community seems to be running short on patience at ANI. That's why I made the initial 2 week partial block, in hopes of getting the point across before you ended up topic banned. Three block coinciding with your ANI thread was just bad timing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Good, now we know the critics gave only two relevant diffs and "clear consensus" should not be in the closer remarks. Since WP:CBAN requires "a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute", which critics (if any) did you decide could not be used for assessing "rough consensus"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On a technical level wasn't the only editor besides Korny involved in the underlying dispute Wes sideman? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan the proper place for this discussion is probably Wikipedia:Closure review. I personally do not agree with your assessment, but neither of our personal opinions matters. And keep in mind, Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.

A consensus of independent input is what actually decides keeping or overturning a closure. You're supposed to go to SFR's talk page, and then if you can't resolve it but still want it overturned, to closure review. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The page you're pointing to says "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached.", which is what I'm trying to find out. Only ScottishFinnishRadish can explain. And this is the page where the discussion began, and even if Wikipedia:Closure review were appropriate (which I doubt) the advice there is "contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion", not "switch to a different forum". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion on a user talk isn't actually a forum. It's more of an opening bid; if you aren't satisfied at a user talk, it's better to try to get additional input. Broad input can't be had on a typical user talk, which tends to include the user's friends, people who've complained to or warned the user, admins who've responded to warnings, a few random nosy parkers like myself, and probably not many others. I'm not sure whether closure review or XRV or AN would be the best place, but the advice to contact the editor and try to resolve the issue through discussion, while excellent, doesn't mean "and keep continuing that discussion there forever". If you aren't satisfied at a user talk, you go to a forum. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not let ScottishFinnishRadish answer or declare an unwillingness to answer? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, they've answered three times here and three times at their own talk. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to define the underlying dispute as you see it to see if I can get all the way to 100% of editors in the discussion involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Only your definition matters. This is only my second question, but if you don't intend to allow more just say so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - I too would like to hear the answers to the questions posed by Peter Gulutzan and Horse Eye's Back, but in addition to those technical questions, I have a general comment. You lamented that, because of the special circumstances of the discussion, the closer has to assess the consensus of editors taking part in the discussion, and how participants viewed the diffs and other evidence presented, not their own views. I don't mean to sound rude, but I believe you didn't look at the views expressed, or the evidence presented, closely enough, and sometimes did substitute your own views. Here's the evidence I see:

1. You wrote in the closing summary that there was a "clear consensus" to topic ban me, before later admitting that there was just a "rough consensus" (I'd argue that there was no real consensus at all).
2. You also wrote in the admin summary that the "general consensus" was that I've had consistently sub-par editing and discussion. In fact, I don't think anyone criticized the quality of my editing per se - just its supposed overall bias. Googleguy007, who listed some of my supposedly ban-worthy edits, even followed up his list by admitting, pretty shockingly, I do not disagree with all of these edits.
3. Most recently, you pointed to this talk page edit of mine as evidence that people wanted to see me out of the topic of American politics - even though what I wrote there is about Canadians, and arguably doesn't really relate to politics either.

To be fair, your views are a lot more coherent than those of the people who opposed me in the discussion. After all, if I'm consistently making subpar edits and talk page comments across a range of articles, then these kinds of topic bans make perfect sense. But if any specific edit of mine is fine, and the only place I've really antagonized people is in the "Libs of TikTok" article, then wide-ranging topic bans are a lot harder to justify. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The GENSEX ban was a clear an obvious consensus. The AP ban was rougher, although a majority of those in favor of sanctions specifically called out an additional AP ban. As far as the sub-par editing and discussion, it's clear that this was the general consensus, or there would not have been such a degree of support for topic bans. I specifically mentioned in my close that CPUSH issues seldom have singular diffs that prove a case, but it is the pattern of edits together that is being taken into consideration. Individual edits taken in a vacuum can be fine, but as part of a larger pattern can indicate an issue. The consensus was that, in this case, that pattern was disruptive. To your third point, I pointed to a list of diffs from the discussion that can apply to the AP topic space. Yes, a Canadian who calls himself a British Liberal and is chancellor of an American college talking about a Canadian covered in American, Canadian, and British media about comments they made on an American-owned social media platform about an interview the other Canadian gave on an American television program and a post they made on another American-owned social media platform can be part of the AP topic. As I said above there is a significant overlap in gensex and AP topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's the thing - it seems to me that you think people were arguing that my edits were sub-par, because that would have been the rational argument to make: I'm an incompetent editor, thus I should be banned. But the evidence doesn't point to that: as I noted, no one accused me of incompetent editing. Rather, the criticism of me was, overall, pretty blatantly ideological. Two users (LilianaUwU and Thebiguglyalien) specifically said I should be banned for having written this in support of another editor. Another editor said I should be banned because of my disagreement with the essay WP:NONAZIS. Reading between the lines, other editors seemed to share that view as well, like the one who accused me of issuing "dog whistles" (to whom?), which are "a hallmark of the extremist right". And even the few editors who specifically listed actual edits I had made noted that they did not disagree with all of these edits - quite literally, they were saying that I should be banned for improving articles in a way that was not to their (political) liking.

Maybe there's no point trying to relitigate a past discussion, but if your goal is to try to capture the will of the crowd, then I think it's important to understand what people were actually saying - on both sides.

As to the Jordan Peterson edit: if that kind of (no offense) tenuous connection is all that's needed to establish that something relates to American politics, then I dare say that a ban on editing about American politics is really a ban on editing about recent events happening anywhere in the world. Perhaps that's the case. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to make this my last reply here, because at this point I don't think we're really having a productive dialog. Sub-par does not imply that you're incompetent, and there are many reasons why edits may be sub-par. For instance, when they are part of a long-term pattern of civil POV pushing, as was the consensus at ANI. Further, to act as if the connection between Peterson and American politics in tenuous doesn't pass the sniff test. Here is Politico interviewing him as part of their series on 50 people reshaping American politics, discussing American politics. Here's The Hill covering his speaking engagement with a group of republican lawmakers. He's done numerous videos on American politics, and he even has a C-Span profile with a few appearances. There are plenty of recent events and public people who are not related to the AP topic, but someone who is a public speaker speaking publicly about politics in the US certainly falls under that umbrella.

If you believe that my close was not a reasonable reading of the consensus, then we've already completed the first part of WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, so you're free to proceed as you wish. I know that you wrote above that you don't plan on returning to editing, but I hope that isn't the case. I hope that, instead, you edit in other topic areas for six months, then request that your topic bans be lifted and return to the topic areas with a bit more awareness of where the line is, and how not to cross it. I don't believe your behavior was nearly disruptive enough that productive editing in other topics wouldn't be enough for the community to AGF and repeal the topic ban. If you're looking for something to edit that will likely keep you out of the spotlight, I've found that there are many declined drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts that are fairly quick and easy to rescue for an experienced editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You make a fair point about Jordan Peterson (and well done with the research), though I still think a perversely-motivated editor could make my life difficult if I were to ever edit anything about, say, the government of China, to take one of thousands of examples. Yes, I'm still planning to stop editing Wikipedia no matter what, though something about the indignity of being banned from writing about anything that relates to American politics, when only a minority of people even recommended that, upset my sense of fairness, I suppose. I don't know why you specifically recommended editing articles about women - that seems like it would be an odd choice if I were trying to avoid anything relating to politics, gender or sexuality - but maybe there was some reason for it. I also don't see why anyone who earns a lifetime ban from Wikipedia editing on some topic should ever be reinstated, let alone just six months later, given that a short-term ban was a different option. Anyway, thanks for your patience, and responses. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm going to flip this question, as I feel it's actually kind of important: would writing about men be a problem w/re GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair question, and I could have been more precise. Writing about a specific man or woman is not in itself a problem; but scrolling through that list of women, I saw a fair number of political figures and activists. Anyway, what I really should have asked is why it makes sense to write about women, as opposed to, say, astronomy - or any of the topics I was already editing about, for that matter. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Totally makes sense to write about astronomy, including the men and women who work in that field. And yes, I'd avoid articles about people who are activists in gender issues, men or women. I'd avoid articles about trans people or anyone who uses they/them or neopronouns. But, say, a woman astronomer who was assigned female at birth and never identified other than a straight cisgender woman? I'd certainly be arguing on your behalf that wasn't a problem. (Pinging @Tamzin who a while back offered to be a resource for GENSEX-related questions here, and would defer to her thinking vs. mine.) Valereee (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Valereee. Well, as you and I briefly discussed at the Athaenara TBAN thread, the scope of GENSEX is a bit strange. The ArbCom pseudo-case was called "Gender and sexuality", but the authorized sanction is for gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people, and the actual enforcement of the sanction sometimes treats it more like it applies to gender in general or gender and sexuality in general. Before I go on, I'll note that I'm on a break from (most) admin activity, and that extends to comments like these, so nothing I say here should be construed as "an admin said I can do X", because right now I'm only an admin to the extent that policy imposes certain obligations. (Coincidentally, Val, vibing very hard with the situation you said you found yourself in last year regarding perceived obligations, but I digress.)

Anyways, in theory a "gender-related disputes" TBAN would not extend to, say, Vi Hart or Angela Zimmerman, to pick two random non-cisgender people whose articles make no mention of gender-related disputes. You also in theory can edit non-biography articles that touch on gender-related disputes, so long as that's not a main focus of the article and your edit in no way pertains to those disputes. In practice, however, I would strongly recommend treatinng such things as safety valves, rather than loopholes. No one wants to wind up at AE for a single copy-edit, even if they eventually "win" the AE thread. I generally recommend that anyone TBANned start as far away as possible from that topic area. That gives them time to familiarize themself with the TBAN's scope and also means that, if there is some de minimis violation, admins will be more likely to AGF that it's an accident. All that said, for broad TBANs like gender-related disputes, there's certainly a bit more leniency than something really narrow like the Shakespeare authorship question, and I can't see how it would be an issue, even in the eyes of the most cynical admin, to edit about a cis woman who is not involved in any gender-related disputes, unless you're adding content that would relate to such a dispute (for instance, "She began working at NASA in 1977 after being initially passed over because she was a woman" or something like that). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I just mentioned it because I've found the list useful in the past. You can browse through and find low hanging fruit that needs an experienced editor's hand, fight systemic bias, and maybe encourage a new editor all in one go. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds positive (and thanks for the response), though I think it's ironic that you mention systemic bias, since I am myself a victim of systemic bias on Wikipedia - the bias against non-"progressive" viewpoints, which is explicit and relentless. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we tend to lean progressive here. But as a victim of systemic bias, maybe you can find some empathy for others who've experienced the same. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Like female astronomers who lack their own article? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like those. :D Do you know the story of Donna Strickland? Valereee (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've definitely heard of her; she's one of the 12 Nobel Prize winners from 2007 to 2018 (10 men and 2 women) who didn't have an English-language Wikipedia article about them when they won. Maybe there have been more since then; I don't know. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Bummer, just when I thought we were maybe going to have a moment of mutual understanding.

Okay, let's get the logical fallacy of Whataboutism out of the way: yes, there are other examples. That twitter thread listed 10 men, including 4 Asians; those Asian men would actually be part of the same systemic bias we have here.

Let's also get out of the way that yes, the notability of academics/research scientists are hard to assess for the average editor who isn't expert in that. We generally have to see if they're a full professor somewhere, which is a strong indication an academic is notable, or if they have been cited often. Generally a quick check for that is if they have a high H-index. But academics and research scholars often do slip through the cracks.

The reason that Donna Strickland is an interesting story isn't so much that she didn't have an article. I'm positive there are hundreds of academics and researchers who don't. It's that two different editors had previously tried to create an article, and those articles were rejected. No one did anything wrong; the first article was a copyvio and the second one was a draft at AfC that expired because no one came back to address issues the reviewer had. The concern is that, in looking at these drafts, no one decided to investigate more closely. Again, no one did anything wrong, even unintentionally. The people doing speedy deletions and AfC reviews don't have time to investigate every case thoroughly.

But the first lines of the expired draft were Donna T. Strickland is an optical physicist and professor at the University of Waterloo working in the fields of ultrafast lasers and nonlinear optics. Strickland, along with her Ph.D. supervisor Dr. Gérard Mourou, co-invented Chirped pulse amplification (CPA), which made it possible to amplify ultrashort pulses to high peak power. That's a plausible claim to notability, and even a brief look at google scholar would have told us she was clearly notable as she's been cited in excess of 300 times a year for the past two decades. The concern, again, is not so much that this eminent academic didn't have an article. It's that someone tried to tell us twice that she should, and provided reasonable evidence, and we still let her fall through the cracks. Valereee (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to respond to there, but I will just say that statistical data is not "whataboutism"; it's an obvious reponse to the use of anecdotal data to try to prove a point. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Statistics would actually be something like (white male Nobel prize winners since 2002 didn’t have an article before they won/total white male Nobel prize winners since 2002) as compared to (non-white-male prize winners since 2002 didn’t have an article before they won/total such winners). I suspect the difference could be significant, but sounds like a lot of work to convince one editor there's an actual issue. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there's no reason to put in work to convince me, but one would think that all the people routinely bringing up the name of Donna Strickland would themselves want to see that kind of analysis, to know if their assumptions about sexism in Wikipedia are actually valid. But it doesn't seem like anyone is curious about it, which would seem to strengthen my own argument about the ideological bubble that most Wikipedia editors (and admins) reside in. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

lol, there's a whole project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There's plenty of research there and at linked pages. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen those pages, and I wasn't that impressed - but maybe the best evidence that the existing research is not too persuasive is that people still bring up the name of Donna Strickland, even five years later. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish: You didn't answer my second question to explain which critics (if any) did you decide could not be used for assessing "rough consensus", and your later statement to Korny O'Near indicates you've made your "last reply here". Unless you say now you will answer questions, I intend to try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I am not suggesting Korny O'Near should join. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

SFR has already directed this to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE above, and said they're satisfied that the first step in that process has been attempted to their satisfaction. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The post is American Politics Topic Ban by ScottishFinnishRadish. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dogmatic (film)

The article Dogmatic (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Riding the Bus with My Sister (book)

Hello, Korny O'Near. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Riding the Bus with My Sister (book), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures (TV series)

Hello, Korny O'Near. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series)

Hello, Korny O'Near. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Masked Dancer (Russian TV series)

Hello, Korny O'Near. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Masked Dancer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Riding the Bus with My Sister (book)

Hello, Korny O'Near. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Riding the Bus with My Sister".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)