This is the message I left you when I pageblocked you on December 19, 2024: Due to your ongoing pattern of of disruptive editing after being warned repeatedly, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Electronic harassment and Talk: Electronic harassment. Your misconduct includes bludgeoning the discussion, failure to accept clearcut consensus and tendentious editing. If this pattern of behavior extends to other articles, the block may be extended sitewide. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. It seems that you did not learn from this previous block and have been engaging in very similar behaviour at Gang stalking. Accordingly, I have blocked you sitewide for one month, and indefinitely from Gang stalking and its talk page. Please correct your behavior. The next block may well be sitewide and indefinite. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is an ongoing dispute at Dispute Resolution, so I'd appreciate a reversal of the site-wide ban until that is resolved. I engaged in good faith, proposed an edit that was well-sourced, and it was reverted. Indeed, if the proposed debate exists in the literature the POV of the page is in violation of NPOV. What particular behaviour do you believe I violated? One well sourced edit detailing a debate is not tendentious editing, consensus cannot override NPOV, and I believe I was responding in good faith without being overly assertive when arguing on the talk page. I proposed an evaluation of a source, and a concrete addition. Amranu (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing at the talk page was tendentious. The edit to the article may have been the straw that broke the camel's back as far as me requesting Cullen to look into it, but it was your editing at the talk page which demonstrated the exact same behavior you were blocked for the last time.

My participation in that dispute resolution proceeding will be limited to pointing out that you are now indefinitely pageblocked and siteblocked for a month. That filing will be promptly closed. However, you should be aware that I've used that forum several times myself, and inevitably, when it is 6 versus 1, the 1 will lose.

Wikipedia works on consensus, and your refusal to accept the very clear consensus on this topic does not entitle you to shop forums until you find one that goes your way. The volunteers at WP:DRN are generally very experienced editors who are aware of this, and will close such obviously bad filings quickly.

Listen, please. You do not have any recourse for your preferred version of that article. But you do have the ability to continue editing WP. So please, take my advice: When your block is over, go to a topic that you care much less about than these topics, and edit there. Get some experience working on topics that aren't going to get you to dig your heels in, topics where you have no trouble compromising and changing your mind. Get used to the way we do things. And then, if you still care about these topics, you may have developed the skillset to edit in this area effectively.

Thus far, you've positioned yourself such that the rest of us have had to work against you at those articles. However, if and when the day comes that you have developed some mastery of collaborative editing and can convince an admin of this, I will be happy to work with you to edit the articles you have been blocked from.

I'm quite sure you'll take this as an attack, or some kind of gravedancing, but it really isn't. I've worked with editors who began their tenure here by creating problems, including some who've been far more disruptive than you have (I once mentored a fellow who had to have edits revdelled because he was calling me slurs). I know for a fact that you are capable of becoming a proficient editor, and I truly hope you'll take the opportunity to do so.

If you need help finding another topic or handling a dispute, you may feel free to ask at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV, local consensus cannot override NPOV. I made one well-sourced edit that I do not believe was in anyway misinterpreted. Contrary to your claims, that edit was -not- tendentious, it was extremely favourable towards the current POV. Possibly as favourable as possible while highlighting the clear debate that the introduction of both gang stalking and electronic harassment are taking sides in, directly against NPOV. I also did not suggest partisan updates to the POV beyond moving the current framing from fact to opinion. Indeed I was quite clear I wanted input on that.

I appreciate your advice was in good faith, but no one at the talk page actually provided any concrete evidence of misinterpretation, one edit before seeking dispute resolution is fair (though perhaps I should've immediately gone to dispute resolution, and if so I apologize), and I made sure that the perspectives of that debate were accurately reflected in the proposed addition.

Interestingly everyone's patting themselves on the back over at the talk page, but I would be surprised if another admin does not agree I should be allowed a chance at dispute resolution on this matter, as there's no evidence I wouldn't have accepted that judgment. Amranu (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Let it not be said that I didn't try.

Your unblock request below will be denied. I promise you that.

For a successful unblock, you will need to acknowledge what you did that caused the block, promise not to do it again, and briefly describe how you will edit without engaging in that behavior in the future. Do that, and most admins will unblock you. My advise is to go ahead and edit this unblock request to reflect that (and to drop the issue about gang stalking).

I will warn you, however, that your response to me here is likely to make most admins read any such properly-written unblock request with a suspicious eye. If you were to attempt to resume the DRN, for example, you would very likely be indefinitely site-blocked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Well I'll also point out for the record, per WP:CONSENSUS, that consensus is supposed to be based on the strength of the arguments, not on whether or not a majority agree. So even if we take Cullen's interpretation that consensus determines what is neutral, it's arguable that consensus was meaningfully achieved.

Ohnoitsjamie did not present an argument against the perspectives in the given source, LuckyLouie suggested I was misinterpreting without any substantiation.

Indeed the only one with any substantial counterargument was you. You drew the distinction between the delusion, and people who suffer from the delusion, and suggested the sources were about the latter, without substantiating how. Indeed, even if we accept that your distinction was relevant, that would only mean the debate would be better placed in the Online Communities section of the article, and not the position I placed it at. However, even a cursory reading of the source will reveal your argument to be bollocks: The sources quoted in the proposed addition are very clearly talking about how to frame the beliefs, which means there is very clearly substantial debate over how to frame the beliefs, which the article is currently taking a side in directly against NPOV. Amranu (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not reverse your one month sitewide block although hypothetically another administrator might do so. As I have recommended to you twice previously, please read the Guide to appealing blocks and read it carefully. As for your comments about consensus and NPOV, consensus among editors is what determines what is neutral and what is not. If another adminstrator wants further input fron me as part of a formal unblock discussion, I will elaborate further at that time. Cullen328 (talk)

A further request: What was the appropriate behavioural pattern here? If I had made the substantial edit first without seeking consensus, would that also not have been considered "tendentious" and resulted in a page ban? From what I can tell: I appropriately sought consensus on the talk page. Consensus was declined on the basis I was "misinterpreting" the sources. I requested clarification as to how, but was not given a substantive reason. I sought dispute resolution, but was immediately banned prior to dispute resolution occurring. Is there a potential set of actions I could've taken that resulted in this NPOV issue being reviewed by editors that were not involved in the original Electronic Harassment debate?

Genuinely, it seems like the very act of seeking to bring this article in line with NPOV, with a well-sourced edit, was considered bad behaviour in and of itself. Amranu (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a unique ability not shared by other editors of determining what does and does not comply with NPOV. As an administrator uninvolved with either of the articles that have been problems for you, I express no opinion on the content matter. This is about your disruptive, uncollaborative behavior. There is no need to make a major, substantive edit that you know has been opposed by several other editors on the talk page, and supported by no one else. Pursuing dispute resolution does not require you to edit disruptively in order to make your case. You are the person who chose to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I should've immediately sought dispute resolution prior to even going to the talk page is what you're suggesting?

I made -one- edit against consensus, because I thought it was necessary prior to seeking dispute resolution.

I agree I do "not have a unique ability to determine what does and does not comply with NPOV." However, I made a substantive argument, it was dismissed as "misinterpreting", clarification was requested as to how, it never came, and then I moved to dispute resolution. Yes, in seeking DR I made an edit against consensus. I was genuinely under the impression such an edit was required, and believed presenting the full edit with sourcing would assuage WP:BURDEN concerns raised by LuckyLouie.

Notably, editors threatened sanctions in the discussion if I even sought DR. Sanctions were threatened initially just for -raising- the NPOV issue with the new source. At what point, in this discussion, was it appropriate to seek DR where I would not have been sanctioned, and is it appropriate to sanction me for -one- edit against consensus, which I made in the process of initiating DR? Amranu (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clear warning that I gave you in December 2024 and your recent edit that was obviously against consensus, I believe that my block was correct. Your notion that an edit against consensus is a necessary or desirable precondition to seeking dispute resolution is false. But you have a currently open unblock request that can be reviewed and acted on by any uninvolved administrator, who may disagree with my reasoning. So, let's wait for other opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's fair. Thanks for the response. Amranu (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cullen328, a few more questions on the Electronic Harassment block and the more recent block:

For the EH block: What aspects of my posting did you consider "tendentious", in particular was there a particular viewpoint I took which you considered "tendentious"?

Do you believe that I was tendentiously editing at Gang stalking? Amranu (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 The main reason I asked these (and my impression is you're supposed to answer under WP:ADMINACCT) is that I don't believe you can reasonably argue I was being tendentious without taking a position on the content dispute at EH. A content dispute for which two experienced editors were helping me draft an RfC for at the time (which also draws into question the "ignoring clear-cut consensus" finding). Thus you may have triggered WP:INVOLVED inadvertently. It follows necessarily that the Gang Stalking block -and- EH block need to be re-assessed by another admin at the very least. Amranu (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about tendentious editing. As an administrator, it is my proper role to block editors for tendentious editing when I conclude that is the best course of action to protect the encyclopedia without taking any stance at all on the content dispute. And you will be unable to find me expressing any opinion on the content issues. It is perfectly possible for an editor to edit tendentiously while being correct on the content dispute. It is a behavioral issue not a content issue. I have already explained why I blocked you and I am not obligated to go into greater and greater detail until you are satisfied with my explanation. If any other administrator has questions for me, I will be happy to answer them. For what it's worth, tendentious editing is a subset of disruptive editing, which is a behavioral guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify the above questions then? Tendentious editing appears to being defined as "being non-neutral". What viewpoint was I pushing at EH?

You have been clear about the particular charges, but not the reasons for those charges. Clarifying what viewpoint I was pushing is a reasonable request about the block under WP:ADMINACCT. I would prefer not to file another block appeal here, and would rather you at the very least reflect on the issue to see if you did have strong feelings on the matter or assumed I was taking a position on a debate, instead of simply describing an unacknowledged debate in reliable sources. Amranu (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep trying to draw me into the content dispute and I will simply not go there. If I did so, I would no longer be an uninvolved administrator. The only thing that I have "strong feelings" about, as it were, is your ongoing misconduct and your failure to learn from my block in December, 2024. And even there, my feelings are not particularly strong. I just work to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and since I have blocked 12,109 accounts, I am long past strong emotions about these matters. You can re-read all of the discussions about these two articles and find that quite a few editors were critical of your editing behavior. There should be plenty for you to learn from in those conversations. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you find answering what particular viewpoint I was pushing as "engaging in the content dispute", then how is that not a violation of WP:INVOLVED? It appears evaluating whether or not I was pushing a particular viewpoint here -requires- a position on the content dispute. That's why I brought up these issues, so you could reflect on that fact.

Editors were quite critical of me. Bludgeoning is undeniable, and the edit against consensus were wrong. But "ignoring clear-cut consensus" seems questionable given the ongoing RfC drafting between MrOllie, WhatamIdoing and myself, the conclusion of which I agreed to honoring. Tendentiousness behaviour normally doesn't require content evaluation, because there is a particular dispute and an editor is taking a side in it. Here, arguing that I was tendentious appears to requiring whether or not the debate I describe is relevant, which inherently entangles it with the content dispute.

I'm not blaming you for this, because I didn't even notice this until recently, but this appears to be the problem with the tendentious charge. Amranu (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overly focused on the first sentence of WP:TENDENTIOUS. The second sentence is It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. And even those two sentences do not describe the full range of tendentious editing behavior. Rather than arguing with me, you should be trying to persuade another administrator that you will no longer engage in disruptive editing behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's a fair response I suppose. I'll file another appeal with these new details and accept the response from that appeal. Amranu (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the interest of being aware -what- behaviour was tendentious (separate from the bludgeoning which is quite clear at EH), could you be more specific since you invoke that second line without explanation? Those details seem relevant for my block appeal. In order to avoid that behaviour in the future, I need to know what specifically you thought that was. Amranu (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge I violated procedure by editing against consensus. However, I believe the timing of the block raised some procedural concerns worth noting. Mostly because it blocked dispute resolution on a well-grounded policy concern, but I discuss my thoughts on what I could've done differently below.

On editing against consensus: I most definitely did this, and it was clearly incorrect which I acknowledge in my above discussion with Cullen. Extenuating information was that I genuinely believed the edit to be needed to move to DR, in order to have content to discuss at DRN. But it's clear now I shouldn't have done this. Incidentally I make an argument above that consensus was weak, but I still should've moved to DR without making the edit.

On tendentious editing: I'm not sure how to approach this one. The debate between Electronic Harassment and Gang Stalking are largely similar, however I was using a novel source to ground my argument against the POV here. Dispute resolution could have clarified whether I was indeed misinterpreting sources, which was the main argument used to form consensus against my NPOV concern. Ostensibly I was originally banned for tendentious editing for the same viewpoint, but whether or not it was here seems to require taking a position on the content dispute, in particular whether the sources are accurately being interpreted by me or not, which DR was supposed to clarify and which this ban interrupted.

On bludgeoning: I genuinely tried to avoid bludgeoning here, and tried to disengage where appropriate. The discussion moved to DR substantially quicker than at Electronic Harassment, and the edits to the talk page were made in good faith. It's generally hard for me to understand how to avoid triggering this when I have a dispute with the other editors and they aren't engaging substantially with my arguments. Arguably I could have moved to DR faster, but I was threatened with sanctions from doing so, ostensibly because the editors at the page already viewed my posts as tendentious, which would require them to show proper understanding of the source used, which I was going to DR over because I didn't believe they had shown.

In summary, the edit against consensus was wrong, and I might've been bludgeoning (it's not particularly clear to me whether or not I was, which I admit might be a red flag). However, whether or not I was tendentiously editing almost requires determining whether or not I was misinterpreting sources to make my point, but the reason I was moving to DR was because I didn't believe anyone had reasonably shown I had.

Thanks for your time. Amranu (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are site blocked until the end of the month. You have partial blocks in addition to this. You seem to agree with the blocking reason that you were editing against consensus. Your unblock request does not persuade me to lift any of your blocks. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2025 (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.

This editor has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than arguing about a subset of WP:FRINGE topics related to conspiracy theories and persecution delusions. They should not be unblocked unless they agree to a broad topic ban covering those areas. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 30 October 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Sorry for the second appeal, but several issues have come to light with my bans. I'd therefore like to appeal the Electronic Harassment, Gang Stalking and associated sitewide block once again in light of these factors. Several substantive reasons, discussed above with Cullen have been made apparent that seriously undermine the validity of the bans. In particular, there are clear-cut WP:ADMINACCT problems above preventing me from completely understanding my charges for both blocks, as well as potential (though almost certainly inadvertent) WP:INVOLVED problems. First, on the behavioural problems that I can speak to, bludgeoning at EH and editing against consensus at GS, I will in the future attempt to avoid bludgeoning an issue if I have a problem under NPOV via the use of dispute resolution mechanisms quicker. As for the editing against consensus issue, this post made prior to the edit should make it clear that it was done in ignorance of proper procedure for moving to dispute resolution, and therefore won't happen again. Now, I would first like to address the two other charges from EH. As discussed above with Cullen, the tendentious editing charge at EH is likely problematic. This is due to the nature of the dispute and the fact that I was arguing for the inclusion of an unacknowledged debate, rather than a particular position in a debate, resulting in Cullen being unable to answer the basic question of "What POV was being pushed?" without becoming involved in the dispute, which he acknowledges. When pressed, Cullen declined to answer what behaviour he considered tendentious. This is a clear WP:ADMINACCT violation and a potential WP:INVOLVED concern that needs attention, given that the charge appears to have required taking a stance on the content dispute itself (in this specific case), and that he was not willing to articulate other alternatives for what that charge was meant to indicate. On the ignoring clear-cut consensus charge at EH, there are two issues with this. First, I was negotiating an RfC with two experienced editors at the time of the ban on this very dispute. Second, and more egregious, Cullen appears to be under the impression (above that comment) that consensus determines what is neutral, rather than duly weighted reliable sources on a topic. This brings into question the charge itself, given the ongoing RfC negotiation and that local consensus should not override NPOV. In particular WP:NPOV makes it quite clear local consensus cannot override the policy, which is ostensibly why an RfC was being worked on at EH and why I attempted to move to DR/N at GS. However, -both- of these DR methods were prevented by bans from Cullen, which is problematic given the above concerns with the charges. Other concerns, mostly WP:ADMINACCT in the above discussion, is that Cullen avoided answering what particular behaviour I violated at GS initially, that he was unable to provide guidance as to what the appropriate behaviour would have been in the situation to allow for dispute resolution on this policy issue, and that he still has not clarified what behaviour was tendentious at EH and whether or not I was bludgeoning or being tendentious at GS. Thus I am unable to create a proper block appeal taking into account those potential problems. I acknowledge that I was bludgeoning at EH and made a disruptive edit at GS. I will continue to work on avoiding bludgeoning in the future, and I will avoid editing against consensus in general and move immediately to DR in similar situations instead. However, given the above problems with the initial EH ban, as well as the dependency of the GS ban on the EH ban, these bans should be re-evaluated on their merits by a neutral admin. In particular, if remedy is warranted given the above problems, I request some form of dispute resolution be allowed to go ahead on this issue, whose result I will accept. Thanks for your time. Amranu (talk) 11:07 pm, 4 November 2025, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the discussion with Cullen328 above and the highlighted diffs, I find no merit in the procedural argument that is being contrived here. I don't see a path to being unblocked other than accepting a topic ban for conspiracy theory and psychological disorder topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 7 November 2025 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi Amranu, can I please ask whether you'd abide by the decision made by the next uninvolved administrator who considers your request, no matter what that decision might be?

I'd like to get that reassurance now if possible, just so this doesn't turn into a protracted dispute that could be detrimental to all involved. I'm not saying that will happen, but I've seen situations when blocked editors were sure their block was unjust - regardless of whether or not they were correct, they didn't know when to drop the stick and it became an awful mess that was almost impossible to untangle.

I want to stress again that I'm not saying I see signs of that here, but they did begin a little like this and I'd hate to see it happen again. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blue Sonnet, I appreciate that you don't wish this to become a protracted dispute. I'll abide by the next decision made, the only reason for the second appeal was the realization of the additional issues I raise here (which I noticed and started additional dialogue with Cullen over literally 3 minutes before the last one was ruled on). Amranu (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for responding! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosguill. While I will be abiding by your decision and waiting out the month here, I do still have significant policy concerns with the above ban. While I won't get into the specifics you've determined are contrived, I do wonder about the NPOV issue I raise above: specifically that Cullen determined that "consensus determines what is neutral", which appears to directly conflict with WP:NPOV. Do you have any further thoughts on this particular issue, and whether I should raise clarifying questions after this ban is over at a particular forum? Thanks Amranu (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All decisions on Wikipedia are made per WP:CONSENSUS; WP:NPOV describes the principles that should be applied and best practices to follow in how we present content where there are multiple perspectives in available sources. Cullen is correct that our decisions about neutrality on articles are carried out through discussions determined by WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NPOV lays out the principles that are considered of central concern in any given discussion about neutrality and how to represent competing claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how that squares with WP:NPOV's clear statement that the principles on which NPOV are based cannot be overriden by editor consensus. Which is why I was seeking DR at the time of both bans. Thanks for your input regardless. Amranu (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of that statement is that local consensus cannot decide to reject the principles of NPOV at an article, ie agreeing to use a criteria other than balance of the text of RS to determine what light to present the topic in. The evaluation of the balance of sources, however, is necessarily a question of consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. That's essentially the issue. The argument I was making was that there was unacknowledged debate, with due weight, in reliable sources that was not part of the article. The primary objections were that I was misinterpreting. There was a single DUE weight concern at GS, it was over one sentence of my proposed addition, not the entire thing. While for obvious reasons I don't expect you to comment on the content debate, my understanding is that this is one of the main reasons for the use of DR.

In particular, if you accept that was the form of my argument, whether or not I was being tendentious is conditioned on whether or not I was misinterpreting the debate, which is a content issue that should have been resolved at DR.

Anyway, I'm getting dangerously close to re-litigating, so if you don't want to comment further I understand. Amranu (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill has explained one of the points that I was trying to make. To restate, local consensus cannot override core content policies themselves. In other words, a group of editors on the talk page of an article cannot agree "We realize that this content is not neutral but we don't care. We want to keep the content that violates NPOV anyway." The same principle applies to verifiability and the restriction against content based on an editor's original research. On the other hand, a group of editors can listen to a dissenting editor, dissect their argument, and can come to a consensus decision that there is no NPOV violation despite the dissent. That group can also decide through consensus whether or not inclusion of proposed new content is due or undue. There is nothing improper about any of that. Engaging in deliberatively disruptive editing in response is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the clarification on NPOV Cullen. I believe we're essentially on the same page, with the question of whether editors are forcing a non-neutral perspective or appropriately forming consensus against a potential NPOV dispute here being (mainly) a question of interpretation, not weight, as I am largely using authors (and two studies) already cited in both pages.

I also find it difficult to productively approach this conversation without getting further embroiled in the content dispute or relitigating, specifically because as far as I can tell the charges against me -are- embroiled with the dispute. In the interest of showing otherwise, I would still appreciate an answer to my earlier question of -what- behaviour was tendentious, separate from bludgeoning, so I can at least address that going forward.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to respond, I appreciate the input and won't be filing any further appeals on the matter. Amranu (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendentious" is a vocabulary word often used by experienced Wikipedia editors, which is described in an essay which says that it helps explain a variety or strain of disruptive editing. It is just a user essay and is therefore not definitive though it is often cited. There is no policy or guideline or specific, narrow definition that an adminstrator must prove beyond a reasonable doubt before using that word. You have openly admitted to editing against consensus. You have conceded that you were probably bludgeoning. For some reason, you are hung up on the word "tendentious". To me, the appropriate slang term synonym is "axe grinding" which is a metaphor and not a literal term, and is closely related to bludgeoning. I am always amazed at people who think that their analysis becomes more convincing if it is repeated over and over and over again. That's false. If one were to ask ten highly experienced editors who have never been blocked if editing against consensus and bludgeoning of discussions is a form of tendentious editing, my experience is that ten out of ten would say "yes". So, I encourage you to move on from your unproductive focus on the word "tendentious" and instead reflect about how you can correct your behavior to avoid being blocked for such conflicts in the future. Because, if the behavior continues, I do not need a crystal ball to predict an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Cullen. If we're narrowing things down to bludgeoning and editing against consensus, those seem like behaviours I can actually demonstrate improvement on, whereas the other charges seemed to me more or less entangled with the dispute. I'll wait out the month and try editing elsewhere to show improvement. Amranu (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that bludgeoning and editing against consensus were the only problems with your editing. Just the most glaring problems. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. My understanding is that bans are supposed to be deterrence though, not punishments. Given that the edit against consensus at Gang Stalking was clearly made out of ignorance and I also made it clear I wasn't planning on edit warring over it, why do you feel the bans are necessary? It honestly seems to me the sole purpose of the bans at GS are to stop DR, as I had and continue to have no real intention to be disruptive.

This perception is likely made worse by the fact that I was threatened over going to DR by the user that requested the ban from you in the first place, and ostensibly going to DR over this issue is the proper way to come to a conclusion on the dispute. Amranu (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify that blocks aren't deterrents or punishment, they're preventative. Short, time-limited blocked like this are intended to make the editor stop and think about their editing.

They're usually a last resort, used in cases where the editor is perhaps losing focus and needs someone else (the admins) to physically pull them away from what they're doing in order to look at whatever the problem may be.

It's difficult to do that on your own, so some people need a bit of a push to redirect their attention - to step back in order to tell the forest from the trees. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amranu, it sounds like you may be thinking of WP:DRN as some sort of judicial system or marriage counselor where a judge or mediator hears evidence, makes observations about individual errors and states which argument is stronger, and rules in favor of one party or another. DRN volunteers typically seek to get parties to find compromise, that's all. And from what I saw on the Talk page and responses at the DRN filing, compromise isn't an appropriate or likely resolution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be true. I would've expected the volunteer to at least require you all to support your assertions that I was misinterpreting with some kind of evidence, which is why I was seeking DR in the first place, along with the fact that it's a NPOV claim so local consensus doesn't override it. My understanding is editors are not supposed to be able to consensus away perspectives in reliable sources they don't like, just because they don't like them. A volunteer might've been able to help us clarify what position sources support, because yes it was either the sources say that or they do not. Amranu (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amranu, I have already explained to you why your assertion that it is a "fact" that it's a NPOV claim so local consensus doesn't override it is incorrect and yet you continue to make this false claim. No one is arguing that that NPOV can be ignored here. The NPOV issue currently exists only in your mind because you have not been able to convince other editors of something that should be obvious if it was true. Continuing to misunderstand and misrepresent policy does not bode well for you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are repeatedly confusing bans and blocks, which are very different things. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant that as short form for the fact that NPOV cannot be used to ignore a relevant debate in the reliable sources (especially when one side of the debate is already mentioned, as it currently is). Obviously, depending on the claim local consensus can override it, i.e. if it's a due weight issue. However, WP:NPOV is fairly clear about the fact that, for instance, opinions should not be stated as fact, and that all significant views in reliable sources should be represented fairly, proportionately without editorial bias. These are fairly clearly principles that cannot be overridden by local consensus.

Just because other editors have made conclusory statements that I'm misinterpreting, does not mean the problem "exists only in my head". The NPOV claim here is not an issue of due weight, or other aspects that consensus should determine. If the sources say what I claim, they should be included in some form and the page needs to updated to stop stating opinion as fact per NPOV. If not, then I'm being tendentious.

Hopefully that clarifies what I meant, because yes there are some NPOV claims that are subject to consensus, but other issues that consensus cannot override.

To make it more clear: Whether the sources say what I claim or not is an objective, verifiable fact. Not an issue that is "just in my head". And DR exists in part to resolve precisely this sort of interpretation dispute. Amranu (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an argument about policy or about sources is simply wrong. In this case, the consensus is that your argument is wrong.

You don't have to believe the consensus deep down in your heart, but you do have to accept it.

There is no way to force others to accept your interpretation. ApLundell (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is supposed to be about strength of argumentation, not count. No one has made a cogent argument as to how I'm misinterpreting sources despite repeated requests to do so. I would be fine with accepting the consensus if it was backed by a valid argument, even if I didn't consider it sound. But no one has presented a valid argument, they've just said "you're misinterpreting". This is why I was seeking DR.

I proposed a verifiable edit from reliable sources. If there was anything in that edit I was misinterpreting, people had a chance to say -exactly- where and how that was occurring. However, they just made conclusory statements without -any- attempts at substantiation. Amranu (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believing that a consensus is wrong is not the same as not having one.

Not accepting that is probably the number one reason people are blocked from editing on Wikipedia. ApLundell (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's a difference between "not accepting consensus" and believing local consensus is flawed and seeking dispute resolution over it. I wasn't edit warring locally, I made one flawed procedural edit that I made clear I expected to be reverted and that I was moving to DR, the latter of which I ostensibly should have the right to do when the only "argument" against the edit is "you're misinterpreting" (or Pants slightly more sophisticated argument, which basically amounted to the same thing). Amranu (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I strongly believe that the last reply makes a clear case that you've crossed the line into WP:INVOLVED territory: Whether or not the NPOV issue exists is clearly a content dispute issue that you are taking a position on by saying "it's all in my head". Whether or not the sources say what I claim is clearly something that should be resolved at DR, not by a single administrator. Amranu (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I can only conclude that you are highly likely to be indefinitely blocked for tendentious axe grinding shortly after your current block expires. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is the relevant language from the applicable guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a cogent argument that you're involved. Consensus cannot override what sources actually say. If a reliable source says "the sky is blue" and consensus says instead that the same source actually says "the sky is purple", then the consensus is clearly against policy and an editor is well in the right to seek DR. An admin taking a position siding with consensus (which you did above) to prevent DR on that issue would be involved, as the consensus violates policy.

This isn't a matter of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it's simply a cogent argument that you're taking a position on the content dispute and are therefore not uninvolved. Your above posts literally discussed the merits of my position in the content dispute, making the apparent claim that because I hadn't convinced other editors it was "obvious", that the dispute was "all in my head". That you think this isn't becoming entangled with the dispute boggles my mind. Amranu (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the history of realist painting and the history of color photography prove that the sky can be many colors, including various shades of red, orange, yellow and almost pure white. And yes, purple. I have never once mentioned my thoughts about any aspect of the content dispute in any way, shape or form, and your continued false claim that I have reflects poorly on your competence as an editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier you stated that users could be largely correct on substance but still blocked due to behaviour. However, more recently you took a position on the dispute by stating that my objection was "all in my head" which is concretely taking a position that my position does not have merit, not a position on my behaviour, making you involved.

That you draw a completely different analogy to avoid interacting with my clear-cut hypothetical (about what a given reliable source itself says vs how consensus interprets that particular source, rather than other potential positions about that same debate) is also telling. Amranu (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amranu please drop the stick, this is exactly what I was worried about when I first posted.

I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but carrying on down this road isn't going to change anything for the better & it's drawing negative attention - that's the last thing you need right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]