User talk:Jed Stuart

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I am surprised this has not been brought to your attention before now. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did as directed, started the dispute resolution process, and notified the main other party in the dispute on the articles Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and find that a moderator has volunteered, there has been brief discussion only along the lines of the other side of the dispute and the dispute closed, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and any dispute needs to proceed slowly and carefully, I would suggest. To me that means that both parties initially agreeing on the moderator. I don't agree on the one that very quickly showed up. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like it might be a difficult thing to achieve, agreement on a moderator. But without that is their any point? Jed Stuart (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jed, the only reason this DR request moved forward at all is because I asked Louie to participate. They didn't initially want to, for a very understandable reason: Your proposal violates WP policy and standards. I thought the process might help clarify the situation, and the (inevitable) conclusion could be something we could point to as something you agreed to abide by if you continued to push the matter. But you filed the request, knowing the process could begin at any time, then spent three days away from WP while an IP editor made a very poor case for your side, in your stead. I understand that real life is more important than WP, and I don't fault you at all for whatever it was that kept you away. In truth, your lack of participation was just as responsible for the failure of the process as it was the IP's passive-aggresive suggestion of adding a banner to WP pages that don't treat fringe subjects seriously enough. It may not be 'your fault' that you didn't participate, but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't.

However, the simple fact was that there were only two possible outcomes: Either you and the IP agreed that the article would reflect the mainstream consensus view of the subject, or the case would be closed as failed. Because there really is no room here for what you're asking. It doesn't really matter which moderator you pick, WP has established through the discretionary sanctions which Guy notified you about that the WP policies on fringe subjects and pseudoscientific subjects are to be strictly enforced, even over consensus. So even if you turned out to be the most loquacious debater and managed to convince Louie, me and the DR volunteer of your position, we would still not be able to implement your suggestion. If you want the article to reflect the possibility that this is real, you must find multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources which state that this is a possibly real phenomenon. And those sources simply do not exist. MjolnirPants

Tell me all about it. 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the DR would be done in such a hurried manner. It is my first experience of that process. The Washington Post is a reliable source for the view that the claims may be about a real phenomena, in my opinion. There are not multiple sources for that view I know which makes it a bit thin, but hey the other side of this is a bit on thin ice too. I don't see yet any evidence of serious peer review by experts in the field. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

moved from User talk:Begoon

You are supporting the view that the TI view should not be given any weight in the electronic harassment article. Have you read the Washington Post article cited "Mind Games"? That clearly gives some credibility to the view that there may be something in the claims of TIs. Many other reliable source articles also put forward the TI claims. And they state the psychiatric opinion as that, an opinion. They do not adopt it as a fact. That is what the article should do in my opinion. Follow the reliable secondary sources. I request that you reconsider closing of that topic. There were many people there who thought the same as I. That issue is not over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Stuart (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request noted and declined. No. The closure was thoroughly endorsed, and long overdue. Jed, please drop the stick, as you've been advised to do by many experienced editors and admins. I consider this matter closed, and further attempts to WP:BLUDGEON it will be unwelcome. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 06:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously adopting the attitude of the other side in this dispute. If I was alone in this I would desist. I have already withdrawn from the articles talk page and taken the issue to the appropriate place NPOV noticeboard. There I find people who do agree with me and a lack of putting a clear case from your side. I have said what I wanted to at the NPOV topic you closed without discussion, but there were still other people saying things which were of interest and not going around in circles. I will mention this at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard soon. Saying I am bludgeoning or sea lioning over and over does not make it true. I could just as easily say that I am being bludgeoned. It is meaningless. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Dept of Environmental Design, TCAE, Hobart. page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Per this ANI discussion, I have topic banned you indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories. Please click on the "topic banned" link to see what such a ban entails, and please feel free to post on my page if anything is unclear to you, or if you wish to protest the ban. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A topic ban means you leave the topic alone. Completely. You do not comment on it. You do not engage in further debate. You do not pass Go and you do not collect $200. This [1] vilates your topic ban. Don't do that. If you do, you will end up blocked. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on the topic of Electronic Harassment. I was commenting on their behaviour in reply to many attacks on my behaviour. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be how you see it, but it's not how it will be seen by admins enforcing the ban. Drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen is allowing me to discuss the issues arising from the EH article at ANI, AN and at his Talk page. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=740604075#Closing_of_ANI_discussion_re_TBAN_for_Jed_Stuart He said to refer questions about the TBAN to him. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? Your comment wasn't at any of those pages. Also, note I said you could discuss it at AN or ANI. Don't spread it over both. Bishonen | talk 03:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No, it was at medcom, where other allegations were made about my behavior. We can have an issue about me attempting to refute the allegation if you want. It was about an allegation nothing to do with the EH article itself. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kb.au was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

In no way passes WP:GNG. Consider merging anything of note to University of Tasmania.

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:Dept of Environmental Design, TCAE, Hobart. 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:Dept of Environmental Design, TCAE, Hobart., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kb.au (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to re-litigate a 2016 ANI discussion where there was wholehearted support for your topic ban is disruptive. Please stop. Now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to re-ignite the dispute. I am attempting to make it clear that I was not doing what I was accused of, that is all. I am doing everything I can to behave appropriately by Wikipedia policies. It says in Responding_to_personal_attacks that the best thing to do is to take it to the offenders talk page, an attempt to sort it there, so I did. This seems to me to be the next step towards what I am surely entitled to, an appeal to the TBAN, as is WP policy.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, users are unequivocally allowed to remove stuff from their own page. Reverting MjolnirPants on his page is disruptive in itself. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

That is not consistent with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments which says: "The basic rule...is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Jed Stuart (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You omitted the relevant part. I bolded it here: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The very first of those exceptions is: "Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details.", where you will find: "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." (my bold). Hope that helps you to understand why Bishonen found your revert disruptive. In any event, wikilawyering about this now is unlikely to be productive, and I concur with NeilN's sound advice to drop the attempt at re-litigation completely. -- Begoon 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "disruptive revert". I did not revert at all. I put in my request for an apology, which is in no way an attempt to talk about the electronic harassment article or the details of the dispute, it is simply to make the point that I was not doing what I have been accused of. I went back to Mjolna's talk page to check it and found it gone two minutes later. I thought that I must have not saved it, so I put it in again. If Mjolna wants to delete my request from the talk page then that is the way Mjolna wants to respond.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the policy on editing or deleting comments of other editors on your own talk page without their permission is that it should not be done, but you can do it if you want to. Quite contradictory. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not contradictory at all. I think you must be misunderstanding the term "exception". Read it all again, with that in mind, and I'm sure it will become clearer. Anyway, I was only trying to help you to understand. If you want to continue down this inadvisable path despite the good advice of experienced admins and editors I can't stop you. Good luck. -- Begoon 04:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." You need to move on before an admin decides your wikilawyering makes you a net negative to Wikipedia. Do something productive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That exception to the rule negates the rule. Usually an exception is a particular instance in which the rule does not apply, surely. The rule is still in place. It's a contradiction as the exception says you can freely remove others comments on your talk page and the rule says that you should not without their permission. It's not really an exception, it's an alternative rule. This is important as it is confusing and now leads to another debate as to whether Mjolnir is entitled to delete my request on his talk page. I will go with whatever is the standard practice though, which seems to be that editors clean up anything they don't like on their talk page. I think that's wrong, the whole show is so full of things like that. [excuse me! You are both right, it is an exception for personal talk pages only.] It would work better if once it's said it stays there, strike through only would lead to less confusion. In this instance Mjolnir could have struck through my request and at least I would not be annoyed at yet another gag. My request and Mjolnir's attitude would be on the record. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)00:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "debate" or "confusion" other than your, by now, very tedious wikilawyering about something that is completely clear to everyone else. Jed, I'm going to say this as politely as I can - nobody is interested in your continual diatribes about how wronged you were, and how unfair it all is. Until now, people have ignored the various infringments of your topic ban which you have made since it was imposed, e.g. - [2], [3] - I wouldn't expect that to continue if you keep drawing attention to yourself like this. Anyway, I'm done trying to help you now - as I said earlier I can't stop you from continuing down this extremely inadvisable path. Again, good luck. -- Begoon 02:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting it wrong is not Wikilawyering It says there that one of the instances of that is "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles (gaming the system)" Certainly Mjolnir is allowed to delete my post immediately. However, that does violate the spirit described in the Talk page guidelines User_talk_pages "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively." @MjolnirPants: telling me to "Fuck Off" and threatening me with being "indefed" is not collaborative. If I had been doing what he claims and being very tedious for a long time wasting other editors time, perhaps that might be ok. But he maintained a completely untrue narrative for 6 months about my attitude to the article. I attempted over and over to get him clear on what I was really attempting to do, and he just kept on saying the same thing, including using the same untruths getting me a TBAN. It perplexes me that in his first post after I joined that talk page he put the same position as I was proposing. A day later he starts accusing me of doing something else. He can delete my request but he should not. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: You packed quite a few points in there. Three more accusations for me to deal with. I think you should give some diffs for "your continual diatribes about how wronged you were" I have been largely silent about it. I will have to deal with third one that I am violating the topic ban in my next library session, using up more of my precious library time. Jed Stuart (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: Yes, there could be seen to be fault in my ref to the McMurray Report. When I read some of that I came across a statement by someone claiming it was well sourced, but did not see the sources myself. I thought I would be bold and give it a try hoping others with more time would know whether it was good as a source. It seems it is not and might even be considered a conspiracy site. However, I was only chasing the fact that Mkultra was in Australia also, not any conspiracy that it was. So later when I found the Sydney Morning Herald article, which seems it is going to be regarded as a reliable source, I mentioned that at the talk page. I think the fact should be in the article, however I did not try again as I realized that Australia might not like that. I was just attempting to establish a fact not adding to a conspiracy theory thanks. Give me a break. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistently referring to me as "Mjolna" is either a deliberate insult or a demonstration of an extreme inability to read. Please stop. "Mjolnir", "Mpants" or "MP" are all acceptable diminutions of my user name that do not imply some sort of subservient status, or a lack of due respect the way "Mjolna" does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants:I apologize for the misspelling. You have so many versions, including one with special characters in it, that it gets jumbled in my mind. Also, I am often in a hurry due to having to work at the local library cramming into 2hrs/day. My home office gear keeps ceasing up on me. I certainly meant no insult. Unlike what you keep giving me. Jed Stuart (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I posted this request on Mjolnir's Talk page but he immediately deleted it, so I am posting it here and notifying all the other editors involved in the TBAN and based on these unfounded accusations, and which I was denied a response to.)

I request an apology for personal_attacks in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive934#Proposed_Topic_ban_of_user:Jed_Stuart_from_editing_articles_related_to_conspiracy_theories

In that you have made three serious accusations to do with my behavior, ability, and character, all entirely lacking evidence.

Firstly in your opening remark you falsely describe the dispute that I started at Talk:Electronic harassment as being over 'whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called "targeted individuals" by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon' concluding 'one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months.... he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon.' That is entirely untrue. Although I do believe that there is a real phenomena of covert targeting by electronic means being described by people claiming to be targeted, I have never attempted to get the article to say that as there are no reliable sources for such a belief. Also, I have never said that I believe it is done by the US Government. I have studied the evidence you put forward and can't find any basis for your accusation.

What the evidence does reveal though is that I was attempting to put the case that the NPOV include the view that some believe that such forms of harassment 'might be real', using the Washington Post article 'Mind games' which has already been accepted as a reference. This is an entirely different proposition to saying that they 'are real'. I was attempting to have the medical opinion that TIs are delusional be stated as an opinion and not the truth of the matter. Many others have come to the article who also believe so, including the people who created it in the first place. Although not representing any organization or other individuals holding this view, I was attempting to find a way to give it a place in the article and thereby reduce the level of regular protest vandalism, and general aggravation. That I was not attempting to have the article 'present this as a real phenomenon' is supported by the actual edits I attempted to make to the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=720012443

which was quickly reverted, and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=721961965

now edited out.

Secondly, you portray me as a "targeted individual". I have never said that I am a TI. I described myself as a supporter of TIs, not as one. This is discrediting as it lumps me in with the many people who are claiming to be TIs, and who engage in protest vandalism of the article, which I don't support.

Thirdly, you say: Jed 'should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them.' Another slur without any evidence. You conclude 'the chances of Jed ever doing anything productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer.' I find this very offensive as, being the holder of a fringe view, I have had to be very careful how and where I mention it. I am not a "monomaniac", thanks. It is not my only activity in Wikipedia, although at the time of the ban you succeeded in instituting, it was taking up a lot of my time as I was having extreme difficulty in my attempts to get a sensible discussion going on the NPOV for the Electronic harassment article.

The fact that this is all a ridiculous beat up is proven by another editor coming to the article in February 2017, 5 months after I received the ban, and easily making most of the change that I was advocating, by removing the articles assertion that the experience of electronic harassment is definitely a delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=766526480

This is in no way an attempt to start a discussion of the content of the EH article, or the dispute. It is just to establish that I was not doing what Mjolnir accused me of. I will deal with any fresh accusations also, but the old ones first, thanks.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: @Ad Orientem: @Guy Macon: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. @LuckyLouie: @Capeo: @Jayron32: @Staszek Lem: @Guy: @Dbrodbeck: @Johnuniq: @Begoon: @2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2: @Robert McClenon: @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @Bishonen: @Muffled Pocketed: @Thomas.W:@2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9: @Jbh: @EdChem:

Jed. You've made your statement here, and hopefully you will be satisfied with that. If you wish to appeal your topic ban, you should communicate with the admin who instituted it: User:Bishonen. Attempting to re-litigate and rebut comments you disagree with in your old ANI thread is a mistake. Wikipedia has moved on, the editors and admins involved have moved on, and your past issues are in the past. Trying to get all the editors you've pinged (above) engaged once again in a debate with you, making requests (that sound like demands) for "apology", etc. is only going to be seen as disruptive and lead to a permanent ban for you. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let it go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: The final statement to me during the ban process made a lot of sense. I learnt a lot from EdChem. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=740810566 I realized don't expect greater fairness getting further into the dispute resolution process. I also learnt leave it alone and edit on other subjects for a long time, before going further. Did I learn the wrong thing there then?Jed Stuart (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants.== January 2018 ==

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were told repeatedly to drop the stick. You didn't. More of the same will cause your talk page access to be revoked. Take this time to think about how to contribute here constructively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I am doing my very best to contribute to Wikipedia constructively.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your very best then perhaps this block should be an indefinite one if you're just going to resume the disruption after the block expires. Bishonen, your thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One month is good for now IMO, NeilN. It's true that the editor doesn't currently look like a good fit for this project, but perhaps they'll return with new resolves. If the disruption does continue then, the next block should be indefinite. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: So, you think it is ok for MjonirPants to consistently, over a period of 6 months culminating in a TBAN, make false claims about my editing behaviour and then, when asked to explain, delete the request and say "Fuck Off"?Jed Stuart (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you have shown they were false claims, so yes, I think it was fine to delete your request and say "Fuck off". "Fuck off" expresses annoyance, and your request was annoying. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I am also feeling annoyed, extremely so. I suppose that entitles me to say to Mjolnir et al "Go Fuck Yourselves!! separately please, together is too depraved." Jed Stuart (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the only claim I ever made about Jed Stuart that was not rather obviously born out by the evidence I submitted was a single time I described him as a TI, which I'm fairly certain was either simply a mistake on my part, or for which I presented the wrong diff. It consisted entirely of the words "...and as..." and though my memory of that time is hazy, I do recall re-writing that post numerous times, trying to trim down my usual wordiness to something that wouldn't be a pain to read, without losing any important information. I may have misstated that claim, or I may have meant it entirely, yet presented the wrong diff. At this point, I'm unwilling to research the matter any further. I'm fine with saying I was wrong in accusing him of claiming to be a TI.

So for what it's worth Jed, I'm sorry I called you a TI. I don't think I meant to, but I clearly did. As for every other accusation I've made about you, every bit of advice I've offered you and every negative characterization of your behavior I've made: I stand by them fully and will not be apologizing. I would further point out that you have repeatedly accused editors of being in collusion with each other and with some mysterious "others" to cover up The Truth™ about TIs and EH. You have repeatedly accused others of lying about sources, violating policy and pushing a POV for their own personal gain, accusations which you have never backed up with the slightest shred of evidence. I tend to agree with Bishonen and NeilN that you simply don't look like a very good fit for this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response at last, and for the limited apology. I did put a lot of thought into the changes I wanted to suggest for that article. I was definitely not wanting to have it state the TI claims as truth. I know what I was doing. We are obviously seeing that very differently. I would go over it with you slowly and carefully, the problem is obvious in our first interaction. However, if attempting to do that is going to get me more characterization as being disruptive, I will leave it there. The article would be better with a TI supporter in it, but so be it. As to your fresh accusations, you should put in the diffs for that. I see nothing but untruth.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, first it seems I have to deal with whether I am a disruptive editor, or not. I don't think that my Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants. is disruptive editing, or part thereof. I prefer to attempt a resolution here. Anyone interested?Jed Stuart (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. No-one is interested in relitigating any of this with you. As for your response above; I've provided the diffs already, at Ad Orientem's talk page as well as at ANI. Everything I've accused you of has been proven to the satisfaction of the WP community, which matters a great deal more than your own opinion. Note that the support for your topic ban was unanimous among editors who have dealt with you. Think about that: every single editor you've dealt with wanted you banned from editing in that area. If you can't take that in, learn from it and adjust your opinion accordingly, that's your problem, not ours. Please leave me out of whatever stink you intend to make about it in the future. More requests for an apology on my talk page will be responded to by me starting a thread at ANI asking for you to be blocked for harassment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: How about I just "harass" you here? There are many others, mostly protest vandals, but also more determined editors, who have held a similar view to mine, including the one who actually made the change that many of us were after. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop pinging me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]