User talk:Bavio the Benighted

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Wimen

Thanks for this fix. However, your edit summary ias inaccurate. My edit addressed the problem introduced by this edit.

I didn't look at past revisions to see where the problem was introduced, but apparently reacted to the change in content I saw on my watchlist without looking at the edit summary which explained it. I see on looking at the recent article history that there was an intervening ceditby you which did not change the article content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block 1: January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bavio the Benighted (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As shown on the [revision history page] of the relevant article, the edit war was initiated and perpetuated by another user (Binksternet), who initially changed the article (see the revert to the stable version by John B123 on 28 January 2021, and the subsequent change by the aforementioned user). The user refused to provide a citation for their claim, which contradicts the references provided in the article (as I mentioned in the comment of my edits). Either way I will no longer make changes to the main article myself, but I wish to continue the debate on the talk page. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were in obvious violation of WP:3RR. You were warned, and you continued to edit war. What did you expect would happen? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block 2: February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bavio the Benighted (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This time, I made 100% sure that all of my edits were in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. I discussed the topic on the talk page until a temporary consensus was reached (threads here (note the discussion ending at 09:44, 6 February 2021) and here). I waited for more than a week to confirm that those who had originally opposed the edits no longer attempted to defend the old version of the definition. However, today, I noticed that one of them (user STSC) had removed the ^[discuss] template from the article and marked this as a 'minor change' despite the discussion on the talk page having settled in favor of changing the definition (which seems like clear vandalism in this case). I took that as an indication that those who originally argued against changing the definition could no longer come up with counterarguments (which seems to be the case here, given that all of them are still quite active but have no longer made attempts to justify their stance further) so I made the suggested edit to the article. The suggested edit was then reverted by user John B123 without consensus---he didn't provide a reason other than that in his opinion, no consensus had been reached for the edit in the first place (despite there being no one defending the original version anymore).

I decided not to revert his change, as I thought he might want to give some reasoning for why he personally did not agree with the edit. I added a ^{[dubious – discuss]} template to the lead sentence to reflect the current state of the talk page, where the definition has been disputed with a preponderance of evidence, and to get more editors to join the discussion to assist in establishing consensus. In other words, this edit was aimed at promoting establishment of consensus and I deemed it necessary to avoid an edit war. Yet Binksternet, another user, decided to revert this change in a blatant attempt to stifle discussion. I reverted his reverts two times in a row, but then gave up so as not to violate the 3RR rule.

In this case scenario, is it actually reasonable for me to be banned for doing what I can to promote the establishment of a consensus? Especially given that the talk page discussion on the lead sentence had been inactive for 9 days in a row, with no one trying to argue against adopting my suggestion anymore? I wasn't even reverting the edit that removed my suggested version of the lead sentence---I literally only "edit-warred" to maintain the ^{[dubious – discuss]} template that was necessary to invite more editors to the talk page. I also stopped making the reverts well before being blocked, exactly so as not to violate the 3RR rule. After giving up on reverting Binksternet's edits, I took the issue to dispute resolution and urged everyone involved in the debate to participate (thread here); this, more than anything, should show that I have no intention to engage in an edit war. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is edit warring. There are no two ways around it. Exemptions to the policies against edit warring can be found at Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. I don't believe any of these apply here.

Please be far more careful. The next block will likely be for way longer. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bavio, I had been writing a longer decline that I lost to the edit conflict. I believe I should still share what I had written:

Your lengthy request encouraged me to look at the record behind these blocks. And based on that, I believe you have erred in resting so much on your recourse to the DRN this time.

It was noted there by one of the volunteers that there seems to be consensus at the talk page for the current wording of the lede sentence, and that the nine editors you notified is rather a lot for DRN; perhaps RFC would be more. But, to me, that's beyond the point.
Simply put, if you were to go there, it would be hard not to describe your behavior as forum shopping ... looking for yet another place where you might be able to win this time. And that's what you seemed to be doing at DRN.

Yes, you were civil (you always have been) and did not actually edit war this time. But that isn't the point. You are beginning to become subtly tendentious, rehashing arguments that have more than once failed to carry the day, and it is that for which I think you have been blocked. You have scrupulously adhered to the letter of policy at the same time that you have failed to grasp its spirit. If nothing else, this block is a message to you that it is well past time to drop the stick and back away from the bloody remnants of the horse.

I would also commend WP:1AM to your attention; I think you'll be able to emphasize with it now.

Specifically I would point out that you have, as several of your interlocutors pointed out, confused your own extensive critiques of the comfort-women claim, which are undeniably original research, with those that have been published by reliable sources. Perhaps someday Ramseyer's view will find support and become more widely accepted; then we can consider your proposed lede. But for now the academic consensus is that most of the comfort women were coerced and misled into that position. And so the article will stay. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, David, you block editors for "rehashing arguments"? Binksternet calls for his block and you oblige while admitting no rule violation? May I remind you of Binksternet's history:
"I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes involving Binksternet. I fully support [Xavexgoem's] block and its length. This is Binksternet's fifth block in just six months. Each block, he has made empty promises to reform his behavior, only to return to gaming the system following his unblocking. I see no reason to assume good faith with him anymore - he is neither a newbie nor an uninformed editor. He knew very well what he is doing, and simply refuses to get the point. Even his appeal is full of deceptive, misleading, and untrue statements... The main issue is Binksternet's harassment of another editor who he has a dispute with... All of this behavior appears to be with the aim of giving irritation, annoyance and distress to the other editor... His disruptive behavior coupled with his long history of edit warring and continued tendentious editing is sufficient enough to warrant a three month block.... He is not even topic banned and the 1RR promise is nothing new - he has made similar promises the last time he was unblocked - only to game it later on."--Brian Dell (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bdell555, who is this "David" you are addressing?

I'm pretty sure Daniel Case was responding to the disruptive behavior of Bavio rather than seeking to support me. But, hey, feel free to attack my past record if it gives you a leg up in your content dispute. But be sure to mention that it has been six years since I was last blocked, and that I have made 200,000 edits since then. That's the kind of clean participation record most people would be proud of. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your behaviour is right out of your old playbook I'd say that's an artifact of admins not following you like Khoikhoi did. Daniel Case supporting the block of an editor for overengaging on a Talk page and then jpgordon actively edit warring while pretending to not be a party to the dispute (as if being an admin means being unaware of the remedy of locking a page) are rather good examples of how it doesn't pay these days for good editors to stand up to your bullying. You've put the time and effort into working the refs and it's paid off for you. The growing dominance of your type is the reason I rarely engage on Wikipedia anymore.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban (bludgeoning discussions)

Bavio, during this month alone, you have made at least 33 substantive posts to Talk:Comfort women (not counting minor follow-up tweaks), amounting to a total of ~130,000 bytes (4,000 bytes per posting on average). You managed to rack up this count even though you were blocked about a third of the time. This morning alone, it's been 25,000 bytes.

By the sheer volume of it, this is no longer healthy discussion. This is bludgeoning the process. Much of it is repetitive. You're restating the same arguments over and over. You can't expect other editors to keep reacting to this barrage of postings. This has become disruptive.

Under the discretionary sanctions rule linked to above, I'm imposing a 6-month topic ban from the issue of "comfort women". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. A 6 month block for excessive recourse to a Talk page. There wouldn't be a need to repeat an argument if it got responded to the first time. Most incredible here is no reference to any policy (an essay is not a guideline/policy and indeed the essay author says "don't think it should ever be a guideline"). Can you cite an instance of someone being blocked for even a week for violating an essay never mind six months?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen on the talk page, I have only repeated (rephrased) my points when addressing repetitive arguments by other users (particularly Binksternet, as well as NettingFish15019 in some instances). For an example, see multiple comments by Binksternet arguing for basing the definition in the lede on the 1996 UN report, a source that I have repeatedly shown to be unreliable based on Wikipedia's rules. My arguments have been much more varied than his: anyone can confirm this. I have never made straw man arguments, argumenta ad hominem or arguments to authority, unlike some other editors. I have ensured that my side of the discussion has been as healthy, logical and evidence-based as it could reasonably be expected to be, something that can arguably not be said of some of the other users on the page.

And most importantly, I am attempting to address what seems to be systemic bias by other editors (and, ostensibly, certain administrators). I am arguing in favor of a view that many editors appear to consider fringe despite a large body of evidence pointing to the contrary. Banning me from participating in the discussion would then almost certainly have a negative effect on the article, in terms of neutrality and objectivity.

In light of the above, I ask you to reconsider this decision. If you feel it would be better for me to limit the number of edits I make per day, or to restrict my posts below a specific (reasonable) character limit, this I can certainly contend with. This would seem much more reasonable and useful for healthy discussion than a complete ban on a vocal member of the community. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that, recently, the byte count of my posts has risen particularly as a result of citations (which sometimes fill entire paragraphs in editing mode) and quotes (which you can see in italics, or in bold in my older posts). I also made longer posts than usual, for several reasons:

I made a long post explaining my position on the issue, something I deemed necessary given how Binksternet continues to misconstrue my stance (see the first paragraph) in his own comments, seemingly in an attempt to poison the well, despite the fact that I had already clarified my statement (see the part mentioning "99%") repeatedly―a case in point demonstrating how the repetitiveness of my posts almost always stems from other editors' selectively ignoring or misconstruing my arguments. In this comment I also quoted myself and Binksternet several times, artificially making the post much longer, since I found the quotes useful for illustrating my point.

In addition, yesterday I made my longest post on the topic thus far analyzing the credibility of the criticism levied against a peer-reviewed source (the recent paper by Ramseyer). The length of this post was directly proportional to the length of the criticism itself, and it had to be so, given that I wanted to examine the validity of this rebuttal as thoroughly as possible. In terms of byte count, the post was an outlier.

On a final note, the alert above states that "If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor." I.e. the alert explicitly encourages―and most certainly does not restrict―discussion on the talk page regarding whether or not a specific edit is appropriate. In other words, I seem to have been banned, without any warning, for following the instructions given to me by Acroterion. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment. You are of course free to appeal this decision at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block 3: February 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 06:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bavio the Benighted (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See an excerpt of my intended response to user:Cullen328 in this thread that I was unable to post because of the sudden block:

""Slander" is defined as "1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation; 2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person. In informal contexts, any lies about another can be referred to as "slander", and, as I proved above, your statement can unambiguously be defined as such. This is only a legal threat when the object of said statements threatens legal action.

You should probably have read the Wikipedia page you linked before posting it: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors.

I'm sorry if I got you all excited, but I have no intention to sue anyone for defaming my Wikipedia account."

I rest my case. Given that I never threatened to engage in external legal action, this block is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Gave me a good laugh though. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I will not unblock anyone whose unblock request contains personal attacks against another editor. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another thing some may find interesting is that I always referred to Cullen328 as "he or she", or "they", not because I care about their gender identity, but because I assume no knowledge of who or what they are in real life. They claim that they have posted their real life identity in their profile, but I have no reason to believe the information there is factual or accurate.

I pointed out that the Wikipedia account Cullen328 made a slanderous statement, but I could not care less about the person behind the account. I refuse to assume such a person even exists. They could be an AI for all I know. I believe this is the stance we should all assume when on the internet in general, given that we live in an era of rampant disinformation and bots are becoming increasingly intelligent. And for that matter, while I see Cullen328's statement as slander towards the account Bavio the Benighted, I do not consider said statement to constitute slander against any real life person or entity.

Anyway. To repeat, I confirm that I have no intention of taking legal action against the person behind the account Cullen328, assuming such a person exists. As such, again, the ban is illegitimate as per WP:NLT. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I commented on the block here: [1]. I'd recommend unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is relatively easy to work out from reading User:Cullen328 that he is Jim Heaphy, and is a real person. I would recommend watching this video to find out who he is and what he does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I removed the part of my unblock request that I assume you were referring to in your decline above, as well as the first part of the first sentence in case you found that part offensive as well. I would note that neither was intended as a personal attack―the final statement was rhetoric aimed at delegitimizing very similar rhetoric by the user it referred to―though I can see how they might be interpreted as such. And they were not false claims, unlike the ones previously aimed at me by the user in question. Either way, the block itself was issued for an illegitimate reason, so it should be reversed.

And as I mentioned in the thread where this debacle began, I only edit Wikipedia to correct obvious errors. In that capacity, my interest is solely focused on what other editors say and the sources they cite. I do not consider their personal backgrounds, which could be entirely fabricated for all I know, to be a matter of import in this context. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing it again! "I do not consider their personal backgrounds, which could be entirely fabricated for all I know" Do not accuse Cullen328 of lying. I will not unblock you without the following conditions:

You agree to accept the topic ban on Comfort women and drop the appeal currently on the noticeboard.
You agree not to comment on or cast aspersions on any other editors.
You further agree that any violation of these can result in an immediate indefinite reblock.

As a further piece of advice, since anyone can (and does) edit Wikipedia, you will find yourself in situations where you are in a minority viewpoint and people are disagreeing with you. In those instance, you should accept it and look at another article; trying to fight the consensus has increasingly diminishing returns. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I never accused anyone of lying about their background. What I did say is that I have absolutely no way to tell whether any user is the person they claim to be. This is epistemological fact. Given that things like deepfakes exist, I am not going to take anyone's word regarding anything they claim about themselves on the internet. This is not equivalent to accusing someone of falsifying their personal details. I am stating what I consider self-evident: I do not know anything about other users with any degree of certainty, and I am therefore not going to assume I do.

The listed conditions do not seem legitimate. Can you quote the policies you based them on?

Given that I did not make a death threat, a single instance of a perceived personal attack (especially if factual, relevant and relatively inoffensive in nature) should not warrant a block of any length as per WP:NPA. And this should be especially true if said "personal attack" was made in response to a very clear, pre-emptive personal attack (WP:NPA: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") by the other party, and followed by another personal attack falsely claiming that I had threatened legal action against them. No matter how you look at it, from a neutral point of view, I am the victim here.

And thank you for your advice. I will take it to heart. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think a request not to cast aspersions on other editors is "legitimate", then I don't think this is worth my time discussing further. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: That condition I can agree to. Starting now, I will make sure not to cast aspersions on other editors by intention, and I will also do my best to avoid making any statements that could be interpreted as personal attacks.

The other two conditions, though, do not appear to be based on any policy I am aware of. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not based on any direct policy, other than perhaps consensus. Simply put, I see five administrators have already had problems with your conduct, and will probably not be happy about me unilaterally lifting a block unless I give some assurance that disruption is not going to happen again. I would advise you to take the topic ban as written, because I don't see a chance of it getting appealed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Fair enough. I agree not to comment on the appeal thread anymore, on the condition that no one makes false claims about my views in the thread or elsewhere. I think it would be unreasonable to expect me to stay silent if someone is actively trying to hurt my reputation.

An unblock would not be unilateral, given that the administrator who initially requested the block seemed unsure as to whether the block was legitimate (for a good reason: it was not) and the one who enacted it does not support maintaining the block anymore, either. No other administrator has defended the block, and Future Perfect at Sunrise kindly expressed support for an unblock. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per agreement with the conditions above, I have now unblocked. I advise you not to take any bait or respond in kind to comments, but if you see any genuine unwarranted attacks, to report them to administrators without getting involved. (Courtesy ping to Cullen328 and El_C). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you have been unblocked

Though I will admit, it was something of a close call. I just wanted to urge you to be careful with regard to your topic ban: this is one of those situations where it is best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I doubt I will be editing much for a while, since I don't spot obvious errors in articles very often, and I tend to be timid about making changes in general (and tolerant of minor inaccuracies / slightly biased edits by other editors). On most years I've only made a handful of edits, so I expect my pace to return to that level now. I wish all the best to you as well, and thank you again for your considerate comment in the appeal thread. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitration enforcement appeal at WP:AN

Hello Bavio the Benighted. Your appeal against the topic ban from Comfort women that was imposed on 24 February by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has been declined per a discussion at WP:AN. Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]