User:Irtapil/Arby

MY OWN NOTES

sup info

Response to misleading paraphrasing

I would like this response to stay next to the comment where what I wrote has been misleadingly paraphrased, please.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I'll get rid of the misused cite notes and/or unnecessary commentary in them, but those out-of-context paraphrasingss severely distort what I said!

• Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one makes it sound like an aggressive baseless assertion, when I was actually very awkwardly trying to describe a topic I am very unsure about. But I'll just delete it, from your reading of it I can see I articulated my point in a way that was very open to misinterpretation, and it's a misuse of a cite note anyway.
• The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated from the secular Fatah party since then. Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. That whole page needs a maybe update.
• In the last case you've reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that comment starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the paste couple of months, not suddenly bridging it up here when we have never discussed it previously.

Irtapil (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

might move this up in next edit

Moved to Talk:List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war # The incongruous flag the IDF claimed they found

What I had in mind for that is something like…

• ISIS
  (claimed by IDF, disputed)

• plus sources of the claim being made

But it gets very messy, because it conflates two possibilities

• Hamas resemble ISIS

• frequently claimed by the IDF and Israeli diplomats
• Or the extreme version of this claim is that Hamas, a group of conservative ultra-nationalists, literally ARE the radical heretical cult who want a global Caliphate, in my opinion, and as supported by those sources, that is total nonsense. But i don't know what other meaning "Hamas is ISIS" can have? and they say it a lot.

• Actual ISIS sympathizers (mutual enemies of Hamas) were also there.

reply to Galobtter

[[ User:Galobtter|Galobtter ]]

I wanted reply to what you said here check whether I'm guessing right about how to improve on the issue you raised. But I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reply to comments there? and this is a bit too peripheral to put in my main statement, so I'll reply to you here on my own talk page.

Most of the cite notes I put on my own stuff have enough information for someone else to finish what I started (or at least that's the intent) e.g.

• often it's a URL that just needs formatting (tricky on a small screen)
• or enough info that a specific familiar reference I have in mind will be the first Google hit from my description
• or if I am adding a link to [[another page]] sometimes I have left a {{cn| reason = copy over some refs from the linked page for this point. }}

I thought these were a useful start others could build on easily? But maybe this is a bit messy or confusing and not helpful? I was doing it that way because people often put bare URLs in ref tags, which don't even show up, people doing that had been annoying me, I thought putting the URL in a {{cn}} Was an improvement? but maybe I was being even more annoying? Is a commented-out URL better than {{CN}}? As in

• Supportable claim. <!-- usefulref.ps -->

But someone has pointed out to me that I was over using that template, so I'll stop doing the main thing that led to that. I usually had the intention to replace it with a citation myself within hours, or minutes, e.g. saving a half-finished edit on my phone, intending to continue on a proper computer immediately, but sometimes I'd get interrupted, or side tracked, before I finished adding those refs, and a few too many were getting left too long.

So now, if I don't get time to finish it properly, I'll copy to a user space page instead of saving. Or I'll undo it if I've already saved and then it turns out I won't get time to finish it. I put in the CNs with follow up notes as a backup incase I got interrupted, but maybe I'm but to just undo the half finished edit until I've got time to come back and finish it properly myself.

Is a {{cn}} with enough info to find a relevant ref a constructive contribution in moderation? e.g. If I spot a small missing bit of info and I know where to find a ref to support it, but I just don't have it on hand at that moment I add the missing info and a note in where to find the ref? or am I best just to leave is alone and stick it ok my own to do list until I have the ref.

Maybe a lot of those "I can half help with this" contributions belong on the talk page? A few tips of how to fix a gap for someone to follow up on go there instead of on the page?

Is there a specific edit that "know[ing] citations exist" refers to? The only time I can recall saying something like that the comment was an "additional citations needed"? If I'm remembering the same one you mean, there was already a one sentence story and a matching citation there, but I knew a lot more information was available, so I flagged it a something needing follow-up with {{cn}} and the "reason=" explaining that more sources were out the.

Obviously "probs exists" is not enough to substitute a citation, but adding it addition to one seems different? I'm not sure if there's a separate template for this? The only one I found was a big header box to put on a whole page? So I just put "additional" as a comment on {{cn}} saying there was way more available of there.

Irtapil (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Platypus in trouble

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147

BilledMammal disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm reporting BilledMammal for disruptive editing at the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, specifically for edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING. Note that this is an especially contentious topic.

As for the edit warring, CarmenEsparzaAmoux added content (with references/sources) and BilledMammal reverted it. I later on restored the content and BilledMammal reverted that. kashmīri then restored the content and BilledMammal reverted them as well.

This user seems to habitually engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. See for example the other discussion on the same page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Iran_'child_recruits'_and_whole_%22Use_of_children%22_section (similarly a highly contentious topic)

Quotations about BilledMammal's editing/debating there are as follows:

"You are effectively admitting that the section isn't adequately sourced and is simply an attempt to impose your own notion of 'fairness' or 'balance' to the war crime coverage." Pincrete 06:52, 4 January

"I have already made my objections clear and it is increasingly difficult to assume good-faith." Pincrete 15:20, 6 January

Additionally, an extremely recent example of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing can also be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, where some quotes from other editors about BilledMammal's conduct include:

"I closed the previous RM, and not much has substantially changed from the past RM" Sceptre 21:26, 5 January 2024

"I have to agree with Turnagra on the idea that the RM process is being used – whether intentionally or not – as a front for culture war politics" idem

"And you have completely missed my point yet again, which I can only assume is intentional at this point." Turnagra 09:22, 31 December 2023

"I don't elaborate because I can't be bothered with you WP:BADGERING every point, per your actions here and in every other move request." Turnagra 05:03, 31 December 2023

BilledMammal also seems to apply double standards. In the "Use of children" discussion (regarding allegations against Hamas) BilledMammal admits "while it is disputed whether children have been used [...]" and says "My point is that we don't require allegations to be proven or universally accepted to be included", but regarding allegations against Israel in the "Organ harvesting" discussion, BilledMammal says "I've ed your recent restoration; the source you provided is insufficient to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If you can't find high quality reliable source that give the story any credibility, please don't restore it without formal consensus."

I hope an admin can review these cases and ideally someone could review more of BilledMammal's recent edits, which are of an extraordinary volume, as this disruptive battleground editing seems to be habitual with this user.

I resent that I have to spend this much time "investigating" and reporting this user when I would rather be engaging in more productive editing. I also apologise for the lack of diffs and overall unprofessionalism of this report, but I don't think it is fair that I should have the burden to do so much work just to report a user. Note that it is very difficult to "prove"/demonstrate this type of disruptive editing which is usually never egregious in any particular instance, which I suspect is why this user hasn't been reported more often or more recently.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have time for a full reply, so I’ll just make a brief one now and expand on it later if necessary.

IOHANNVSVERVS alleges that I’ve been stonewalling, which requires that I am pushing a position which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree. The discussion in question has had participation from five editors; three for inclusion, two against - there isn’t even a rough consensus here, let alone a clear one.

As a relevant side note, IOHANNVSVERVS has jumped straight into this topic area; even now, despite the ECP requirement, they have less than 500 edits outside of it.

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. I keep half an eye on this page out of curiosity and would have seen this anyway, but regardless I appreciate being given a heads up when I've been mentioned. It also seems telling that you are concerned at there being such a wide range of people potentially taking issue with your conduct. Turnagra (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ve long been concerned about BilledMammal's conduct (BATTLEGROUND is an apt description) and no, I didn’t get a notification. Schwede66 07:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have long had an issue with BilledMammal's approach to engaging with Wikipedia, and have considered opening something here about them myself. I haven't yet, simply because that sort of thing isn't what I'm on Wikipedia for, and that I'm perfectly happy to leave it be when my niche of interest (New Zealand-related topics) isn't in their crosshairs. But in nearly every discussion I have had with them, I have found the exact sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and frequent WP:BADGERING which IOHANNVSVERVS describes, as well as a frustrating tendency towards WP:SEALIONING and a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

I'd also note that this is not the first time that BilledMammal has been brought to ANI for this behaviour - at the time, they stated that "it is clear that in general how [they] engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action [they] will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust [their] behaviour to address it". I think it is also clear that this attempt has failed, as the sort of things brought up in that first ANI discussion (disruptive editing, harassment, stonewalling and so on) are being raised again and are clearly still issues. Incidentally, one of them (accusing other editors with opposing positions of being canvassed) has already happened in their first message in response to the ANI.

I won't expand too much more for now - this and the previous ANI cover a lot of my concerns nicely, and as mentioned this sort of thing isn't my cup of tea or why I'm on Wikipedia - but I will say that I believe there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing across every topic area which BilledMammal wades into, and I hope that some action will finally be taken as a result of this. Turnagra (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me. I agree with the OP view and also find BilledMammal's editing pattern quite disruptive. Wars tend to be an emotive matter, and it's no surprise that editors sometimes find it hard to maintain NPOV in the face of immense human suffering or because of their national/religious/political affiliations. However, BilledMammal's editing goes quite far with one-sided editing and attempts to defend it, and I'd call such edits as mentioned a blatant violation of NPOV and collegial spirit.

At the same time, I'm not sure that BilledMammal's editing or attitude warrants an outright block (I haven't checked their earlier editing history, though). However, a TBAN might help other editors to maintain article quality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in any of the relevant disputes and I do think that BilledMammal's conduct War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, including WP:STONEWALLING regarding the organ harvesting paragraph. I don't read their arguments there as particularly policy-based and I also read the consensus of the discussion as basically against them, even before their most recent revert.

I'm less convinced regarding Talk:Pākehā_settlers#Requested_move_30_December_2023, which seems to be a pretty ordinary content dispute. (I'm also not uninvolved with that, though, since I !voted over there before commenting here.)

Since the main dispute here is on an Israel/Palestine page, you may want to go to WP:AE first. WP:ANI, at least in my opinion, is often less useful for conduct issues around controversial topics than WP:AE by their nature as controversial and WP:ANI's nature as a very public board. Loki (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is @IOHANNVSVERVS: attempt to sidestep their inability to gain WP:CONSENSUS eg: [1], [2] and use ANI [3] to bludgeon their views into articles.

This type of statement in a CTopics area is disruptive: [4].

ATM, I've really only been watching the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but think a boomerang on WP:BATTLEGROUND in this topic area might be worth considering for IOHANNVSVERVS.  // Timothy :: talk  09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing diffs provided to support the claim here. I'm not involved in the topic, though I've dealt with some issues with BilledMammal in the past unrelated to this (and also seen them be really insightful in battleground situations too). I feel like I'd even-handedly pick up repeats of tendentious editing from them pretty easily if I saw it again.

Instead, when I go to look through Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war#Organ_harvesting, I'm not seeing anything stand out. If anything, at least on it's face, BilledMammal would be correct in removing text, asking for better sourcing, etc. in terms of WP:ONUS policy. It's up to those wanting to include the content to get consensus for it, and BM's comments at least seem even-handed from what I can gather. If there's any topic to WP:RAISE source quality right now and be cautious, this seems like one. If there really are WP:POV issues from BilledMammal, then that should be clearly articulated, though I imagine WP:AE is the better venue for that. ANI just isn't suited for contentious topics or having to sort through content disputes at that level. To be clear though, I think that would backfire on IOHANNVSVERVS right now if they went to AE.

Instead, I'm seeing editors like IOHANNVSVERVS lashing out at BilledMammal on the talk page in violation of WP:FOC with accusations of stonewalling, etc. despite BM trying to give some guidance on that there. This is a common problem in contentious topics where someone doesn't get traction for an edit and accuses another of stonewall, etc. as an attempt to win a content dispute. Coming here instead strikes me as battleground behavior when they simply could have started an RfC to strike at the core question of what would be WP:DUE inclusion of the reporting. Even if BM's behavior is an underlying issue here (not seeing it, but could be convinced with evidence too), IOHANNVSVERVS, seems to be showing more obvious problems right now. I wouldn't cast a full on support WP:!VOTE right now, but I agree with TimothyBlue above that a boomerang does seem like a reasonable discussion point for preventing disruption in the topic. KoA (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like a content dispute. If there's edit war issue take to the noticeboard. Frankly IOHANNVSVERVS's behavior here is more troubling. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment this should be closed, and the matter taken to WP:AE. That is, if we want a constructive end to this dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved in the discussion at Talk:Pākehā_settlers not the other articles, that I have not seen. I am quite surprised to see BilledMammal reported for disruptive editing. He has an opinion on issues and makes his point quite clear. I have never seen what I would call disruption. What I have seen however is a few editors unable to counter his arguments and getting frustrated. In the Pakeha discussion a consensus is beginning to appear to change the word from Pakeha back to European, as BilledMammal suggests with a few editors not liking that. What is wrong with that? I note that similar discussions with the same editors have occurred on other NZ related articles about similar issues (in brief - promotion of the Maori language). I think this complaint is without merit regarding the Pakeha article, and probably the other articles too. Accusing someone of being disruptive because you don't agree with them is bad form. Incidentally, I was recently been accused of badgering Turnagra in the Pakeha discussion for giving an opinion which he did not like (and in IMO was unable to counter) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's got nothing to do with the content, which I'm not going to get into here. It's got to do with the manner in which BilledMammal conducts themselves in these discussions. I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth. Turnagra (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Who was wanting it to say Pakeha?

  and who wanted it to say European?

  I'm having trouble following the story.

  22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For some reason, my computer decided to change "reverted" to "ed", this is the second time its happened, I will try and figure out why and look for it in the future. I've had some other issues, might be time to reinstall everything. Sorry for the issue.  // Timothy :: talk  05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• In disagreements between BilledMammal and Turnagra I have watched both parties disagree at length. They (and I) have disagreed for maybe three years now(?), mostly on whether New Zealand place names should use an official dual-language name, or only the English portion of it. I think both users have valid points, though I typically side with BM. If there is problematic behaviour, it certainly involves both of them. In fact, as an ideological battleground, I would be inclined to say Turnagra is more at fault.
  With that background, it seems poor judgement for either of them to close the other’s RMs (T closing BM, April 2022; BM closing T), March 2023. And in recent months, BilledMammal has opened RMs on several NZ places, and Turnagra has responded with some less-than-professional opposition (Oppose this ridiculous crusade against dual names has gone on long enough Hinemoatū / Howard River; Oppose this is ridiculous Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora). Both editors left notes to tell the other off (User talk:BilledMammal#Your recent move requests and User talk:Turnagra#November 2023), and I almost went to say something to both of them, but felt I would have come off too involved for it to be helpful.
  In all though, I wouldn’t say that either editor is a “problem” in the larger context I’ve observed… but I also haven’t observed the Israel–Hamas stuff. — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• In places where I've seen BilledMammal recently, I have to admit that they appear to be somewhat stubborn, sometimes to the point where they're brushing against WP:BATTLEGROUND. That said, I don't think their behaviour has progressed to the point where it can't be turned around. I think a friendly warning and a kind request for a cooler head when editing is basically all we can, and should, give out here. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban might be appropriate. Today they have (so far) removed about 20% of the page List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war without obtaining consensus. The only discussion on the talk page for the past two weeks has been me, disagreeing with them as politely as I can manage (but by I admit not always succeeding at remaining polite), and an anonymous IP agreeing with BilledMammal about one change that BilledMammal made before today. Irtapil (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty much all I've removed is empty and near-empty columns; the amount of information in the article is virtually unchanged, but its readability is vastly improved. This isn't the place to discuss content, but on the talk page I've asked you to elaborate on what specific objections you have; I would welcome a response and I can try to understand and address your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You should have considered helping fill the missing data instead of removing things.

  I am finding it extremely frustrating that you continually remove content without contributing.

  • I have been working on creating columns that best fit the data for a complicated and messy war.
  • Today you ignored the {{in use}} and deleted things while I was in the process of working on them.
  • You also deleted at least one column that was filled, with only two gaps.
  • Nobody agreed with you that any of the columns needed to be deleted. I disagreed with you; nobody else was consulted.

  Irtapil (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are very prolifically editing a topic that you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about.

  • you were wanting to remove "belligerents" columns from a table of military engagements.
  • you claimed "the Arabic Wiki has some issues with neutrality" despite, as far as i can tell, no knowledge of Arabic?

  Irtapil (talk) Irtapil (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The IP who agreed with the one prior change looks like a real person, not a sock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.150.162.83 But BilledMammal obtained no consensus before any of the major overhaul today. They seem to have made a lot of changes to that page that, particularly deleting content, that zero people (or only one other user) agreed with. But again I'm reluctant to accuse too harshly because I've not looked at in systematically, and my perception could be biased by their hostility. Irtapil (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• BilledMammal ia also currently accusing me of a series of alleged violations of the WP:1RR on my talk page, for edits which are mostly not actually reverts, and which they seem to have no substantive objection to in most cases. I am unsure what their intention is, but it feels like harassment. Irtapil (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest this be closed as it's not going to go anywhere. I've argued against a few of BilledMammal's requested moves and don't see that anything they've done is worthy of censure. The closest to disruptive I've seen is (albeit polite) badgering of move closers when things haven't gone their way; [5] [6] and I notice that the more recent closes haven't attracted this attention therefore anything problematic has already stopped. I haven't followed the Gaza situation on WP and consequently have no comment to make on that other than to suggest the entire topic and all its related pages should be locked indefinitely with administrators only having edit access. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus - I think the issue warrants further investigation. BilledMammal is very active in the Israel Hamas war topic (an active real world conflict). This one editor seems to be having a disproportionate impact on the overall coverage of this topic on Wikipedia, despite being possibly not very knowledgeable and / or possibly quite personally biased, and visibly hostile to several other editors. Again, I've not looked systematically, but I am quite worried by the general impression I've got so far. Irtapil (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I avoid formulating a general opinion because it would require further investigation on my part, and I expect tons of partisanship and battleground behaviour on both sides in Israel–Hamas war-related articles and talk pages. I have just looked at BilledMammal's claims of 1RR violations against Irtapil mentioned above, and they seem very "weak" to say the least. Claiming that this edit is a revert of this 2-weeks-older edit looks rather spurious, same with the other claimed violations. Cavarrone 08:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  === Hostages and prisoners timeline === (Irtapil) → === Hostages timeline === (BilledMammal) → === prisoner exchanges timeline === (Irtapil)

  That one actually seems like one of the clearer examples of a revert to me. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that stretches the definition of a revert, and that's still only one, so doesn't break the 1RR.

  • But I have changed it back as you requested, I changed it back as soon as I understood what you wanted me to self revert.
  • I also re-added the word "hostages" to the cells in the column labelled "hostages", as you requested.
  • I also reintegrated your entire revised table under "Hostages timeline" into the current version, the version where I'm salvaging the deleted content, pending genuine consensus on what should be removed. I am still working on this, do not delete anything further while I am working on this, that would be a violation of 1RR.
  • Most editors would not have spent the time re-adding your additions you made during your deletion spree? they would have just done a roll back?

  If you want to make such major revisions (changing every section of a page, removing multiple columns of multiple tables, etc.), please do that in your user space, you can create a proposed alternative version and link it on the talk page to discuss. Or your can discuss the changes before you make them.

  Irtapil (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  and then after getting angry at me for changing "=== Hostages timeline ===" you said a section called "=== Hostages timeline ===" wasn't relevant to the page that you insisted it be included in. I don't know what you're goal is here? what are you trying to achieve? Irtapil (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also raised that particular edit on the talk page the day after it was made, and got no response. Admittedly I was a bit abrupt in my phrasing, but it was a strange edit that seemed to need some explanation. After 2 weeks of no response, I had only re-added one matching word. Irtapil (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to the chorus that I've had many unpleasant interactions with Billed Mammal. Some are healthy debates you'd expect from dedicated people who have different visions of how to solve a problem. However, I do think BM has crossed the line on a few occasions, and their conduct does merit sanction. Probably the most egregious I witnessed was at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources a year ago. I submitted proposal 1 of that RFC, which proposed to modify the language of WP:NOR. BM, who was one of the loudest voices of opposition to that question, authored a watered down version, which became proposal 1a. That's fine. Prop 1 passed, prop 1a did not. However, as visible by examining the page history for WP:NOR, BM unilaterally imposed the language of failed prop 1a, by removing the very words that differed between the two proposals. If someone can unilaterally undo the outcome of an RFC and impose their proposal, what is even the point of having an RFC? That fact that BM did not face sanctions over that amazes me, as it goes to the heart of Wikipedia’s supposed community spirit and the policy of governing by consensus. Lastly, I’ll point out that despite BM’s dire predictions, the sky has not fallen in the months that have passed since prop1 modified the language at WP:NOR. Dave (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The change to NOR (which was not the same as Prop 1a) was done after extensive discussions on the talk page and with the endorsement of the closer, who said that it was in line with the community consensus. It certainly wasn't unilateral. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Moabdave: You should strike this comment. You know exactly why I think you should do so, so I will not elaborate. However, you are very much welcome to explain to the rest of the community why I do not believe you have any moral standing to discuss BilledMammal or that RFC publicly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Meh. Looked at the links and couldn't see any egregious behavioural problems. Obviously this is a fraught area and content disputes can shade into processology where there's a temptation to try and remove 'opponents' out the back door. I suggest this is closed and any future complaint about BilledMammal is raised at AE, with any clear-cut evidence concisely presented. Filers there should of course expect to have their own conduct under the spotlight too. Bon courage (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Kitten. Hi everyone. Shalom Aleichem. Salam Aleikum. I have a rule. I see walls of text anywhere and I flee. I’m breaking that rule a bit here. Not to support anyone - we seem to be discussing people’s reactions to hypothetical fairy tales about child soldiers and organ harvesting, when there are other real stories to be told, but to each his own. I’ll flee in a minute but since you’re all here I just wondered if anyone could use this article anywhere [7] it’s about a kitten, although perhaps not in the way you think. I think a good fair use argument for the wide angle picture of the kitten with Banksy’s caption could be made for an appropriate article. I don’t always agree with Banksy’s philosophies but he is without a doubt one of the most powerful artists in the world today, despite (because of?) his conciseness and the sometimes fleeting nature of his artwork. Now that I think of it, maybe there is something we, and especially I, could learn from that. Happy editing <he says fleeing...> Ayenaee (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.