Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Johnuniq. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I didn't mean to imply malicious intent. I thought I made it clear that I recognized that the personal attack was unintentional.      — Freoh 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this. I didn't say you were malicious, I said you failed to show good faith. You left the section heading the way it was. You failed entirely to show good faith to an editor with far more experience from you. Maybe the edit summary was silly and John said he was sorry about that, but his point was good. I note you didn't reply to his last comment, perhaps you didn't read it. In any case your claiming he was showing ownership showed a lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am more confused. You are reminding me to assume good faith, but then stating that I am acting with a lack of good faith? I would like to stress that I acted in good faith and that I assumed Johnuniq did as well. They accidentally made a personal attack and engaged in ownership behavior without realizing it. IfAssuming Johnuniq is truly here to build an encyclopedia, then they should accept guidance regarding conduct norms here, regardless of if they are an administrator. Which last comment are you referring to, Doug Weller? It looks like I made the last comment at User talk:Johnuniq § No personal attacks.      — Freoh 13:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) (edited 01:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]

He asked a number of questions you didn't answer. And you double-downed on the ownership stuff and basically accused him of conduct unbecoming an Administrator. And "if User:Johnuniq..." is again showing a lack of good faith. So you didn't assume he acted in good faith. To do that you would have had to apologise for your accusation of ownership. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I should have worded that differently, so I just edited it. In the past, other editors have described me as bludgeoning with walls of text for replying to every point in a discussion, so I try to keep focused on the most important. If there is a question that you would like me to answer, feel free to ask. I do, however, find Johnuniq's conduct unbecoming an Administrator, especially the lack of apology after making a personal attack against a newcomer.      — Freoh 01:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a personal attack as I explained at my talk. Regardless of that, you are supporting a single-purpose account (with a total of one edit) who posted "Pinker's long time support for race pseudoscience" as the heading for a BLP at Talk:Steven Pinker. The SPA then linked to what you say is their own website, a website that is dedicated to attacking Pinker. Your priorities are misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My priorities in this conversation are Wikipedia's third and fourth pillars. The general test for a single-purpose account describes a user who makes edits, and Nancygerette has made only one. The response to this comment was an administrator calling her a nutcase, so I don't blame her for not coming back. I want to make sure that I understand you correctly: are you saying that it is not a personal attack to call a newcomer editor a nutcase?      — Freoh 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm hoping we can identify some common understanding. Right now, I'm off to the pool, so I may not respond right away. We also walk to the lake everyday. As you may have guessed, I have a science background (due to the US national emphasis in 1957). Is there something I can do? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the benefits I got from trying to answer you was realizing an application of skolemization could have answered a potential issue. But that potential answer really belonged on stackoverflow or elsewhere, not on a WP page. Lambda calculus can be a very high-level design language (when expressed in something like Haskell). But there is no one for me to talk to in those languages. I am currently reading Bartosz Milewski (2019) Category Theory for Programmers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with lambda calculus, but I still do not see its relevance to our discussion at Talk:Science. I think that your communication style involves a lot of analogies that I am having trouble following, and I think it would be helpful if you could be more direct. Which aspect of Wikipedia's neutrality policy do you think I am violating? Is there any information that I have presented that you find unreliable or explicitly contradicted by other sources? I feel like bringing category theory into this discussion would only lead to improper synthesis.      — Freoh 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I am trying to find common ground, so that we might reach common understanding. I have tried different formulations, ranging from very concrete to very abstract (e.g.,p→q), but I observe that you seem not to care about my (or other editors') formulations, except when they contain a keyword: neutrality.

It takes work for me to formulate responses, about which you seem not to care, except as they pertain to an agenda. If the goal is to attack a position, then I can understand the tactic. However if the goal is to understand my response, then we have a chance to attain a common understanding. OK?

Right now it appears to me that you see a p→q formulation as not relevant. However if cause→effect is meaningful, might you agree that the formulation could be relevant?

-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand which cause and effect you refer to. Are you talking generally about the evolution of causal cognition in humans? Are you saying that I as an editor have not provided a good cause for the changes that I want to make? I tried to ask you earlier what the variables p and q stood for, but your Galileo analogy only confused me further.      — Freoh 01:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to start with situated cognition (5Ws) using our sensory systems first, for immediate survival (pain, heat, proprioception, touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight, ...), we might formulate immediate concepts. Gradually we might posit more distant, i.e., less proximate or dangerous threats/opportunities to our longer-term survival (embodied cognition). Here I take the cue of Francis Crick: he considered the visual system's V1, the primary visual cortex as the simplest pathway for understanding the brain. I should mention that Crick FC (and Koch C) gradually deduced that the claustrum was a basic part for understanding our facility of awareness (see default mode network), before Crick's death (these are not random facts; researchers have been able to switch a human's consciousness on/off by probing the claustrum).

The labyrinth was Galileo's simile for the bewilderment of the scientific researcher trying to solve some conundrum.

Attacking the conundrum from another direction, one might use abstract parameters p, q, r, s, ... in place of the senses mentioned above. I was hoping you might agree that ((p→q)→r)→s constitute a form with arguments p→q (a functional form), nested in another functional form; the forms might then moot linguistic sentences, for formulating hypotheses, which could then be compared with data. C.S. Peirce has found a solution ((p→q)→p)→p to the pqrs form. Peirce began his research process with categories. I didn't mean to imply that Milewski's book is part of my argument; I mentioned it as my reading. For example Needham's Science and Civilisation in China was formative for me in 1976, and I sometimes fall back on it (2023).

My critique about affirming the consequent was about any premature fixation of meaning to an arbitrary part of a linguistic form. More work would have to be done, first. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What arbitrary part of a linguistic form are you referring to? My arguments have been more focused on archaeology and anthropology rather than linguistics. Are you saying that I am affirming the consequent? If so, what is the conditional statement if p then q that I am invalidly converting into if q then p?      — Freoh 13:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. We are exploring a causal map. I believe that we are finally communicating based on common ground. So if the causal map is (Gärdenfors,Lombard) → (hominin/predator tracking)) [call this '(p→q)'], I would, based on my reading of Gärdenfors & Lombard, say their reasoning is valid. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rayleigh–Jeans law. 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. Stop edit warring at the RJ law. The next time you do, I will take you to ANI. The category is sourced, that you can't read the citations is not anyone else's problem. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made reverts to that page, only one. By my count, you have made six [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] since 4 March, all adding uncited content. I would recommend that you read through Wikipedia's citation guidelines. In particular, content should not be verified only in the talk page and edit summaries, but explicitly supported by text within the article itself using inline citations. Could you try to reach a consensus rather than edit warring?      — Freoh 17:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 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. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That edit warring policy advises that I add an appropriate cleanup tag. Could you please follow the instructions at Template:POV lead § When to remove and leave the templates until we can reach a consensus on the talk page? There are several editors there opposed to your presentation of this civilian attack as a battle.  — Freoh 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise that you reconsider your approach to discussions where you feel that there's an NPOV issue, such as the ones at Talk:James Madison, Talk:Constitution of the United States, Talk:Civilization, and Talk:Science. It seems a pattern has developed where you seek to change prose in a way that fundamentally alters the presentation of a broad subject, and you continue to push for such changes after several editors explain why they are inadvisable, using heterodox or otherwise questionable sources that contradict mainstream scholarship. In the future, if you make a proposal and it's immediately rejected, I suggest that you accept that it's not a viable suggestion and find somewhere else to contribute. I know that you're trying to combat systemic bias, but I've found it's much more effective to write about those topics on their own (for example, writing biographies for people in underrepresented communities/countries) than to try to add weight for them in an article where most editors don't think it should go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I try to stick mostly to tier 1 sources, and I try to ask for clarification whenever other editors describe my sources as questionable so that we can reach a reasonable consensus. Which of my proposals contradict mainstream scholarship? Some of my sources present information in a different style than the typical propaganda that attributes a lot to white men, but I think that there is a reasonable balance, and I try to stay open to compromise. I agree that some of these discussions are uphill battles, but they're also high-visibility articles (Science is a level 1 vital article, and James Madison was a featured article candidate), so I think it makes sense to add balance to the articles themselves, rather than create a POV fork inclusive of underrepresented groups.      — Freoh 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two of you are talking about two different approaches to correcting bias that aren't mutually excusive. Thebiguglyalien is suggesting a quantitative approach that would fill in gaps in the number of articles about underrepresented demographics. Freoh is talking about a qualitative approach that would address bias affecting the quality & NPOV of existing articles. The former is bottom-up, and the latter is top-down (and so bound to be more contentious.)

Freoh, I've seen some of the debates that you've engaged in, but I'm not prepared to comment on them because I haven't looked over them thoroughly – other than to say that I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I'm curious though, if you feel like you've been effective in tackling these high-level vital articles? Do you feel like you've been able to move these articles toward NPOV? – I haven't tracked your results. Because it would be worth some conflict if this were an effective strategy. I (possibly like TBUA) have mostly concluded that vital articles are hard to change (even when there are good sources supporting those changes), so I've been working on more of a bottom-up approach trying to establish better content in low-level articles with the hope that it can be moved upward over time. I don't know if this is better, and I definitely don't think they're mutually exclusive approaches. Also, do you think that you have expended much political capital with this approach? (That is, if it's been effective do you think it will remain effective or are other editors going to write you off at some point because of perceptions such as that voiced by TBUA above?) I'm interested in your thoughts about the best strategies to remedy the bias. Thanks for all you do! Larataguera (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your strategies greatly outperform mine in terms of quantity, and I don't blame you two for taking that approach. I waste a lot of time in talk pages, and it's exhausting to continuously argue with people who think that Euro-centrism is "mainstream" just because it's what they learned in high school. I will say that this is not my first Wikipedia account, and I was somewhat successful on a previous account before a clean start with this one. With James Madison, I was successful at drawing attention to some serious issues that prevented it from getting promoted to featured article status, and at Civilization, I did make a few small changes (but there's still some work to do). The discussions at Science and Constitution of the United States are still in progress, so only time will tell. I do have some other successful changes that I don't want to draw attention to here in case other biased editors read this comment and want to revert them. I'm still figuring out the best strategies, and I might write an essay at some point about the ones I've found more successful, though I did write a little bit in a (somewhat painful) conversation at User talk:Bambablock § Western world changes. Happy to chat more with you!      — Freoh 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad you feel like you've had some successes even if it's been painful. It seems like correcting POV in the vital articles requires some strategy, but it's obviously the end goal – however we get there. I think using the FA and GA process makes sense (even if your efforts at James Madison didn't actually yield a featured article). Those might be places where people have some motivation to fix these issues. Let me know if you have any other bright ideas I guess. Thanks. Larataguera (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that as a new and inexperienced editor you want to make large, meaningful changes to important articles, but I don't think your approach will have any success. As a new editor, you lack a lot of important experience in copy-editing articles, use of sources, and leading/starting discussions with wide participation. I say this not to discourage you, but rather to encourage you to work alongside experienced editors in the topic areas you want to work in to draft RFCs before you launch them. If I were you, before starting the U.S. Constitution RFC I would have asked editors that have written featured articles in the topic area (s) as well as in the most active relevant WikiProjects (such as Politics) for help in the wording of the RFC. Doing so will help you make better proposals. In any case, hope you enjoy the rest of the week ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, in retrospect I should have worded it differently (and limited its scope more). I will keep this in mind for future RfCs. I was trying to follow the instructions, so maybe you should edit those with your suggestions.      — Freoh 01:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed it or I would have blocked you for it. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which personal attack?      — Freoh 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on trying to shoehorn your tags into the article? It is better to wait for the outcome of the RfC before doing anything, including adding tags. Once the RfC has concluded, and whatever conclusion has been drawn from it, only then ould we proceed with action. A slow edit-war is still an edit-war, and you may potentially be sanctioned for it. Please just be patient. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 05:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)h[reply]

The edit-warring policy recommends keeping the cleanup tags until the dispute is resolved. These maintenance templates help to publicize the RfC to people viewing the article.  — Freoh 13:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring policy recommends including existing ones. None of those tags were there before. You have misinterpreted the policy. For example, if there is a ((POV)) tag, and discussion is initiated on the talk page to remedy it, the POV tag should not be removed. In this instance however, you inserted it after the discussion began. That's not the correct usage.Also, RfCs don't need to be publicized. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AVOIDEDITWAR policy says to add an appropriate cleanup tag [emphasis added]. What makes you say that this is limited to pre-discussion tags?  — Freoh 12:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag" means that instead of reverting (potentially starting an edit war), add a tag and/or start a discussion. Once discussion has started, discuss - don't add tags. Especially don't edit war over the presence or absence of tags. And definitely consider simply conceding the issue when you have been officially admonished over at ANI for showing an inability to drop the stick.

I recommend that, before making any talk comment during, say, the next month or so, ask yourself Freoh: does even a single user agree with me? If the answer is "no", I advise you to take that particular talk discussion as an opportunity to showcase your ability to walk away (drop the stick, concede the issue, leave the discussion). CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this remarkable edit you've accomplished two ends, one noble. The actual contribution is useful and honorable--an admission you should have added the exact page numbers which support your assertions. Thank you. When we make assertions it's important to cite directly so the argument isn't muddied unduly by misunderstanding. Unfortunately the edit summary is a perfect example of why you were brought to ANI in the first place: you just can't stop throwing AGF bombs in piped links, something explicitly pointed out during the lengthy ANI thread I studied the other day. By linking WP:LISTEN in your special pleading, you're making an explicit projection the reason others disagree with you is that they refuse to get the point. This is not WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (which you should reread). BusterD (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Civility is one of the five pillars. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Fellow editors should be treated as respected colleagues who are collaborating on an important project. New users who contribute constructively should be welcomed and treated with patience, but non-constructive newcomers should be politely discouraged or, where appropriate, counseled as to how to make more constructive contributions.: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Civility Passed 13 to 0 at 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians are bound to disagree; since disagreement is inevitable, we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable. This doesn't only refer to personal attacks and abuse; it also refers to the disinterested mind we must bring to dispute. While wikipedians are expected to edit boldly and in their own interest, we should not develop such a conflict of interest that our position is the correct one or certainly not the only valid one. Note that in the piped links I've used in this section (and that ArbCom used in their assertion) there's no misleading or judgemental material; the links go where they seem to aim. There's quite a difference between merely linking to a policy and linking policies in such ways to reveal an affirmative and useful position. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure what the exact problem is with Freoh's linking. It's confrontational in a few different ways. That's why I just said "tone down" because I couldn't put the problem into words well enough to say "stop". Like they put "assuming bad faith" as a link on my talk page... It both looks like it might lead to WP:AGF and it straight out says I am assuming bad faith, rather than just suggesting that I assume good faith. Not a big deal at all on its own, but to me it is not any one incident but the barrage of these handcrafted user warnings Freoh sends out. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD, I completely agree that my position is not the only valid one. It is precisely for this reason that I have been making a serious effort to understand the points of view of other editors through clarifying questions. After understanding better, I make compromise proposals that try to address everyone's concerns. Your response to my approach was to threaten me because of my overlong talk arguments, so I would appreciate some guidance about how to draw the line between a content dispute and a conflict of interest. (Is this link misleading or judgmental? In my view, Wikipedia's policy about the distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes is affirmative and useful here.)

As for the link to WP:LISTEN, that guideline is clear that even editors acting in good faith can sometimes fail to get the point, and I assume that everyone in that discussion is acting in good faith. By my count, three different editors in that WP:ANI thread linked me to WP:IDHT, and you advised me to adapt to Wikipedia practices, philosophies and culture (i.e. behave like other people here). Could you explain why their use of WP:IDHT was appropriate but my use of WP:LISTEN was inappropriate?

To continue our discussion from your talk page, I agree that the ANI procedure was littered with examples, but I think that other editors have misrepresented those examples. Looking at one of these examples: an editor said that I refused to acknowledge the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military industrial cities, turning out weapons of war on a massive scale, where most of the weapons testing was conducted, all of which were engineered and manufactured by "civilians", and which would have extended the war indefinitely. I do not deny that there was a military element to this attack, but my argument was that reliable sources tended to emphasize the much greater number of civilians killed in this attack. I am not ignoring facts, just prioritizing more important aspects, as required by Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Do you see my behavior in that discussion as ignoring discussion consensus?

In general, I think that this conversation would be more productive if we avoid a battleground mentality. I am not trying to fight, and nobody lost. That being said, calling editors pejorative terms like SJW is absolutely a personal attack, and DIYeditor's description of my behavior as trolling does imply bad faith. Am I confrontational? Sure. But I think that confronting these user conduct issues directly is appropriate, and I am only following the WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE recommendations. Interested to hear your thoughts, especially if you have specific suggestions for ways that I could be more effective.  — Freoh 12:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor's description of my behavior as trolling does imply bad faith: You tried this move before. I asked if it looked like it might be trolling. The canvassing sounded a little weird to me, and your behavior was under review, and I asked what it looked like. Seems like a good opportunity to chill out a little, however you want to take it. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh, the community warned you, not me. I was merely acting in my capacity as sysop. You seem to personalize your arguments unduly. For example, in your comment above you say I threatened you (which sounds sinister) but in fact I warned you (in my official capacity as an uninvolved administrator) after I closed a well-attended ANI thread in which you had every opportunity to reply and assert. My closure was not my personal preference (as you falsely imply) but my disinterested reading of the entire discussion. When I asked another uninvolved admin for a second opinion, they agreed with my reading and their only critiques were editing suggestions.

If in the ANI discussion you disagreed with specific characterizations, few editors seemed to agree with your take as expressed in their assertions and replies to yours. This lack of support should be an indicator you are not in line with page consensus.

I agree with you 100% wikipedians should avoid a battleground mentality and urge you to take your own advice here. While you self report you're not trying to fight or win, you are still replying here as if it is the majority of others who are reading the situations incorrectly. That is simply not the case.

One way you may learn to be more effective is to listen more and comment less. Make your argument, make it effectively, then let others pick it apart. Consider such feedback as improvement, not disagreement. Engage in such feedback by accommodating, as other have been forced to accommodate you of late. The sysop I called on for second opinion was surprised you weren't blocked indefinitely, but I didn't yet see consensus for that in the ANI discussion. My observation since the ANI closure is that you're failing to grasp the essentials of civility, trying to push your position without first accepting your situation. Your usage of the LISTEN piped link was disingenuous and deceptive, where as the use of the IDHT link was largely descriptive and in my opinion an accurate depiction.

Remember, I came into this situation as a neutral party. I've read the ANI discussion and concluded against your positions. Another admin will soon come along and apply harsher treatment, if you cannot learn to read an obvious case against you.

Finally, this talk page discussion your overlinking is quite distracting; less is more. You may actually at some point find yourself blocked purely for overlinking in talk page discussions (and I think that's the first time in my almost 18 wiki-years I've ever made that assertion.) Freoh, you should think about why you're here. Wikipedians may disregard your positions partially because of your behavior. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]