.Raven

  Hello, I'm Kate the mochii. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Transsexual. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. I notice you have been replying consistently to questions or comments not directed to you: see WP:BLUDGEONING. Kate the mochii (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

> "if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend." — Gladly! What specifically was offensive?

> "you have been replying consistently to questions or comments not directed to you" — Occasionally. I have even more often been replying to questions or comments that were directed to me... so what do you mean by "consistently"? – .Raven  .talk 05:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, acute bludgeoning of discussions in multiple venues since my partial block for bludgeoning was applied on June 21. Until you are able to commit to moderating your behaviour, there's simply no point in setting the block to expire, as this problem seems very likely to reoccur. There is a fundamental impasse here, which seems to follow your notion that editcountitis renders bludgeoning of any given discussion virtually impossible — I assure you that that is not so. The fact you fail to realize that you've exhausted the patience of so many of your fellow editors is something you need to recognize and come to terms with. Accordingly, detailed assurances of significant improvement will be required in order to see this block lifted (consult WP:GAB for best outcomes). For reference, latest ANI permalink.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 13:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

> "your notion that editcountitis renders bludgeoning of any given discussion virtually impossible"

1. I did not come up with that term in that discussion, and
2. Neither I nor anyone else that I saw contends that a high edit-count renders bludgeoning virtually impossible.

@Jc37: was very clear about what that "notion" was:

Edit quantity over edit quality is almost always a waste of community time.. And if you have read WP:BLUDGEON (and I presume that you have) you'd know that it has little to do with the quantity of the edits, but what the edits consist of. Hence: editcountitis is for the birds.

In other words, the focus on counting edits neglected to consider whether the content of those edits was bludgeoning.

One can have a high edit-count AND bludgeon; or one can have a high edit-count and NOT bludgeon.

Pinging to invite people, posting that (after another's suggestion) I had invited two topically-related groups; posting comments like "You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived." -or- "And I'll certainly support and defend your right to your opinion, on this and any other matter. Agree to disagree?" are not attempts to silence or coerce other opinions, far from it.

Once again, it is strange enough that an essay (which says up top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.") is grounds for sanctions (twice now); it is stranger still that what that essay actually says ("Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed. ... Replying to many questions that are directed to you is perfectly fine. ... Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine...") was ignored in favor of insistence that I should not even respond to accusations against me, particularly those containing factual misstatements — thus excluding defense against those accusations and misstatements, and rigging the outcome. If what happened in my AN/I case has become "standard practice", it's the worse for Wikipedia: mobbing induces false consensus. – .Raven  .talk 14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Raven, should you appeal this block, as you have every right to do, I would urge you to take some time in crafting your appeal and to adopt a less combative approach. Again, that has nothing to do with substance. Now is not the time for sharp elbows. That is, of course, if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. If making a point is a larger concern (and no judgment if it is), then obviously, do as you will. Whatever happens, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alas, even clicking "Thank" on that comment now has no effect.

In standard English, "combative" is a synonym of "antagonistic", "bellicose", and "belligerent" — which in turn are synonyms of "hostile", "threatening", and "aggressive". From my viewpoint, I tried to provide information (citing/linking/quoting sources), as well as inviting/welcoming others' participation — while people who disliked that information (and could not rebut it) responded by pushing to silence me. Which approach best fits "combative" and which its opposite? – .Raven  .talk 14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:EDITCOUNTITIS is a humor page that was created around the time I became an admin, but the term or concept itself isn't the point here. The point is that you've failed to adjust your behaviour in the face of complaints from a significant number of editors, coming from multiple venues, all expressing the same concern: your persistent bludgeoning being an problem. Attempting to rely on WP:LAWYERING, like with the would-be conundrum of the aforementioned exact count(itis), or with WP:BLUDGEON being an explanatory essay — searching for such technicalities as a way to reverse this block, or as a defense for your bludgeoning previously, is folly. Sorry if this is harsh, but it's best to be blunt and to the point. El_C 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a humor page with a "Seriously, though..." section that says:

... edit counts do not judge the quality of the edits, as insightful comments on talk pages and acts of vandalism are counted equally. Hence, it is not always a reliable way of telling how experienced or worthy a user truly is.

That likewise is not the definition of WP:BLUDGEON. – .Raven  .talk 17:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what the point of writing and quoting that is. Regardless, I suggest you focus your efforts on writing a convincing appeal. One which is actually responsive to the various complaints which prompted this block. El_C 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

According to https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/combative, some other synonyms of "combative" are "cantankerous", "contentious" and "energetic". My impression is that you picked the more aggressive synonyms to claim that your behavior wasn't "combative". I'd agree that your behavior wasn't aggressive, but I'm afraid I often found it cantankerous. Which doesn't mean you're a bad person, or anything like that! I can be quite cantankerous myself. :-) But I had to learn to dial it down to make my time on Wikipedia more productive and enjoyable for myself and others. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

wikt:cantankerous: "Given to or marked by an ill-tempered nature; ill-tempered, cranky, surly, crabby."

Perhaps if guessing is accepted as telepathy. Above I stated the nature of my motive and attitude on talkpages; the willingness of some to block/ban a different opinion than their own might better fit that description (at least).

WP:BLUDGEON says: When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse.

To date, no-one has pointed to a comment of mine that actually contains "intimidation" or "verbal attack"; but what of the intimidation and verbal attacks directed at me in that AN/I thread itself, e.g. shut-up-or-be-blocked?

In this thread, I actually say of my own personal opinion ("the term should probably be 'transgender/transsexual healthcare'"): "... but we have no control over off-wiki terminology, and should not expect or try to right great wrongs using Wikipedia as a platform." My correspondent then accuses me of "poisoning the well" (a type of ad hominem attack), and when I ask whom I attacked, they accuse me of having accused them of both RGW and "poisoning the well" — which, if it were true, would justify saying I was combative and verbally attacking... but "contrariwise", any objective reader can see it isn't true. (I'll skip quoting the rest of Tweedledee's remark.)

Likewise the previous thread on this page, asking "if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend." — to which I reply, "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?" — and get no reply... only to have that misquoted against me at AN/I... and when I correct the quote and ask the AN/I crew to tell me what in any comment of mine on that page was offensive, no-one there answers that question, either.

It has become clear that accusations needn't be true in order to be brought up at AN/I and used to justify !votes for sanctions or actually imposing sanctions. Bad enough that an essay rather than policy is cited as the charge; worse that what the essay actually says is disregarded when I cite it in my own defense. Did this demonstrate good faith?

And, my goodness, if to be "energetic" is an element of offense, you folks have a lot of blocking left to do. – .Raven  .talk 05:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

To date, no-one has pointed to a comment of mine that actually contains "intimidation" or "verbal attack"

Diff: [1] Kate the mochii (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kate the mochii: That link is to your own comment on this page, already linked in the comment you're replying to. It refers to "... such as your addition to Talk:Transsexual." — which is non-specific, since I'd made more than one "addition" there. My reply to your "if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend." was "Gladly! What specifically was offensive?"... and you have never answered that. Linking to your own original comment still does not answer that. I cannot read your mind. Will you please specify your referent? – .Raven  .talk 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

(ec - note: I am keeping my admin hat off for these circumstances.)

I'm sorry to see that this happened.

I see now that you have apparently been quoting my use of "editcountitis". My point there is that not all edits are equal. So trying to merely count edits would not be good.

However, that is not an excuse to make multiple repeated combative comments. When we say "quality over quantity", that means providing the "quality". Just merely looking over AN/I, it was becoming pretty obvious that you were heading towards an indefinite block. So I tried to provide you an opportunity above, but you made a different choice. And while you are free to make your own choice. Sometimes our choices come with repercussions.

At this point, should you decide to request an unblock, you might want to take on board some of the concerns laid out above.

And of course, the opportunity above is still available to you should you so choose. though at this point, there's no guarantee what the result may be.

Whatever the future brings, I wish you well. - jc37 15:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Jc37. Above I've addressed the usage of "combative" regarding my talkpage comments. On AN/I I responded to "multiple repeated" misstatements of fact and moved goalposts, e.g. using the count of edits not just comments — counting such things as typo fixes against me — which naturally works more against the people with vision problems who can't catch all their own errors in preview. That my responding to these was also counted against me speaks volumes about what Wikipedia has become. Pity. – .Raven  .talk 17:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

FWIW I strongly oppose this block. Lots of editors making a bad argument for a temp block does not warrant an indefinite block. None of Raven's behavior so far has warranted an indefinite block or in fact any block. Loki (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indefinite doesn't mean forever. Blocks aren't always perfectly fair, and maybe another admin would have made a slightly different decision, but given the ANI thread, this block is a reasonable choice. I think Raven should just stay away from Wikipedia for a while (a week? a month? I don't know), calm down, and then think about how to appeal the block. My impression is that Raven is an intelligent and enthusiastic editor, but sometimes a bit too enthusiastic. Maybe Raven sometimes focuses too much on very specific trees and loses sight of the forest. Or something like that... — Chrisahn (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editors not only add material; some engage in disruptive deletions as well, e.g. repeatedly removing reliable sources posted by other editors.
2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
4. Does not engage in consensus building:
   1. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
   2. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors might:

6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or Wikipedia:Ownership of articles—or sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Notably, I have done none of these. My edits were to comment pages specifically to discuss article edits rather than unilaterally make them (with the risk of ensuing reversions or edit wars); I did so giving either factual citations or policy/guideline links to support my reasoning — indeed, the complaints were precisely that I had done so too much (in the opinion of those opposed to my suggested edits). When this was lawfared to WP:ANI, numerous false assertions were made by others; having observed that others accused had been judged harshly for NOT responding to assertions/accusations (apparently the maxim "to fail to deny is to admit" was in force), I responded to these (quite the opposite of "disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations")... and was further accused — and apparently judged — for having responded to them. The one and only time anyone objected to an actual article edit of mine was after I had been invited to make such an edit... and it was immediately reverted as not good enough, though the changes it made to its original (notably adding verifiable citations where CN tags had been) were exactly what had been demanded, and the reversion deleted sourced text. I did not edit-war even in that situation; a sandbox was created, I was invited to edit there, and was thanked when I recreated my article-edit version there. This does not meet the above description of "tendentious editing", let alone "disregarding" others' comments/requests.

As for talkpage comments and the accusation of "bludgeoning"... WP:BLUDGEON says: When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. — I have not verbally attacked anyone. Above and at ANI, one person asserted I had posted something "offensive", but declined to specify what, despite repeated requests. I invite anyone to read that conversation and tell me what I said that was offensive — please. For that matter, to read all the conversations brought up, and find where I verbally attacked or intimidated or otherwise tried to limit anyone's ability to post their own opinions. I would think that inviting prior RfC participants or related groups to join new RfCs is quite the reverse; likewise, posting comments like "You certainly can point out whatever you think any page 'really ought to only be about'. Your opinion, taken with others, goes into the mix from which consensus (or 'no consensus') is derived." -or- "And I'll certainly support and defend your right to your opinion, on this and any other matter. Agree to disagree?" are not attempts to silence or coerce other opinions, far from it.

The hostility, and intent to "limit the ability to interject opinions", have come from the other direction. But again notably, even the ANI thread contained motions for no more than a temporary block. It has now been in place for a month and a half. Loki's comment above ("Lots of editors making a bad argument for a temp block does not warrant an indefinite block. None of Raven's behavior so far has warranted an indefinite block or in fact any block.") seems apt. – .Raven  .talk 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply